THE  GIFT  OF 

MAY  TREAT  MORRISON 

IN  MEMORY  OF 

ALEXANDER  F  MORRISON 


CHARLES  H.  BETTS 


Betts-Roosevelt  Letters 


A  Spirited  and  Illuminating  Discussion  on  a  Pure  Democ- 
racy ^  Direct  Nominations,  the  Initiative,  the  Ref- 
erendum and  the  Recall  and  the  New  York 
State  Court  of  Appeals'  Decision 
in  the  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation Case 


BY 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS 

Editor  of  The  Lyons  Republican 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE  LYONS  REPUBLICAN  COMPANY 

Lyons,  N.  Y. 
1912 


.     ,.     .  Copyright,  1912,.     .     •*•. 
'V    ••.'•*••  *.    I^y  '  ■    •'.'■   .   .* 

'Thb  LyoiJs  "Republican 'cJomVany 


(Second  Edition) 


^' 


TO     THE     FATHERS,     WHOSE     WISDOM,     STATES- 
MANSHIP AND  PATRIOTISM  FOUNDED  THE  AMER- 

??  ICAN    REPRESENTATIVE    REPUBLIC THE    ONLY 

!>- 

W  FREE     REPUBLIC     THAT     EVER     EXISTED THIS 

cc 

^  WORK    IS    DEDICATED. 


1 

2 


«: 
2 
It. 
O 

C 
3 


434405 


THE  DEMAGOGUES 

Their  heads  with  trifles  well  are  filled, 
In  trifles  they  are  deeply  skilled; 
And  if  some  man,  with  sense  endued, 
Should  in  their  presence  he  so  rude 
To  speak  like  one  who  books  has  read, 
And  show  he  wears  a  learned  head, 
With  anger  fired  they  on  him  fall. 
He's  persecuted  by  them  all. 

— Voltaire. 


TABLE  OF  C  ONTEX'l  S 

PAGLO 

betts'  first  letter 8 

Roosevelt's  reply 9 

betts'  rejoinder 10 

COURT    OF   appeals'    DECISION 11 

THE    court's    opinion QUOTED 12 

would  bring  about  a  revolution 13 

two  schools  of  statesmen their  present  drift 14 

the  position  of  betts  and  roosevelt  defined 10 

Roosevelt's  speech  on  a  pure  democracy  at  the  state  con- 
vention      17 

wisdom  of  the  fathers 19 

hamilton  and  jefferson  agree  on  representative  govern- 
MENT     20 

THE    PEOPLE,    NOT    THE    GOVERNMENT,    AT   FAULT 21 

A    SIMPLfi    OR    PURE    DEMOCRACY 22 

-»IRECT    NOMINATIONS 23 

wooDRow  Wilson's  bad  example 23 

composition  of  the  public 24 

we  must  deal  with  people  and  conditions  as  they  are  and 

not  as  we  would  like  to  have  them 26 

all  kinds  of  conflicting  theories 28 

Roosevelt's  rejoinder 29 

representative  government  a  necessity 29 

american  representative  democracy  vs.  a  pure  democracy  30 

taft  on  the  "rule  of  the  people" 66 

quotations   from   philosophers,   statesmen,    historians  and 

scholars  on  the  science  of  government 30 

hetts'  conclusion 70 

party  government  and  party  organization 72 

betts'    address    on    employers'    liability    and    workmen's 

compensation 74 

p.  tecumseh  sherman  on  ''roosevelt  and  the  courts ".  ...    89 

words  of  commendation 93 

press  comments 95 


PREFACE 

There  is  in  this  country  a  widespread  movement  to  overthrow  the 
American  constitution  and  undermine  and  destroy  our  American 
system  of  representative  government.  The  purpose  of  this  movement 
is  to  supplant  our  system  with  what  is  known  as  a  pure  or  direct 
democracy.  The  most  conspicuous  manifestation  of  this  movement 
is  the  adoption  of  direct  primary  nominations,  the  initiative,  the  ref- 
erendum and  the  recall  in  many  states. 

This  movement  is  not  progressive,  but  reactionary.  It  is  a  species 
of  political  atavism.  It  is  a  reversion  to  the  diseases,  disorders  and 
deformities  of  the  primitive  political  state.  This  whole  movement, 
which  is  promoted  largely  by  noise,  is  being  carried  on  in  blissfully 
ignorant  disregard  of  the  plain  teachings  of  history  and  experience, 
and  in  bold  defiance  of  the  enlightened  statesmanship  of  the  civiHzed 
world. 

Therefore,  it  has  been  deemed  wise  and  timely,  to  present  to  the 
pubUc  in  this  form  the  Betts-Roosevelt  letters,  which  contain  a 
somewhat  spirited  and  illuminating  discussion  of  this  whole  subject. 

There  is  so  much  general  ignorance  on  this  subject, — largelj^ 
because  there  has  been  no  systematic  study  of  it, — that  it  is  high  time 
the  American  system  of  government  was  thoroughly  discussed  and  its 
merits  presented  to  the  pubhc  in  a  true  light. 

For  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  this  necessary  work,  the  writer  has 
added  to  the  Betts-Roosevelt  letters  a  large  number  of  quotations  on 
this  subject  from  philosophers,  statesmen,  historians,  scholars  and 
students  of  political  science,  past  and  present.  It  is  his  aim  to  mar- 
shal and  present  to  the  reader  the  best  thoughts  and  conclusions  of 
the  greatest  thinkers  of  the  world  on  the  subject. 

The  writer  hopes  that  these  opinions,  arguments  and  philosophi- 
cal observations  will  throw  an  added  light  upon  our  system  of  represen- 


6  PEEFACE 

tative  government,  and  he  is  of  the  opinion  that  those  who  take  the 
trouble  to  read  the  arguments  and  conclusions  herein  presented  will 
gain  a  new  appreciation  of  the  American  system  of  representative 
government,  so  wisely  founded  by  the  fathers  of  the  Republic,  who 
by  the  universal  voice  of  posterity  are  admitted  to  have  been  a  galaxy 
of  the  greatest  statesmen  ever  assembled  at  a  given  time,  to  frame  a 
constitution  and  found  a  government. 

It  was  the  great  world  renowned  English  statesman,  William  E. 
Gladstone,  who  speaking  of  the  American  constitution,  said: 

"  It  is  the  most  wonderful  work  ever  struck  off  at  a  given  time  by 
the  brain  and  purpose  of  man." 

The  writer  believes  that  the  American  system  is  the  best  form  of 
government  ever  instituted  among  men  and  that  a  pure  or  direct 
democracy  is  a  primitive  and  impractical  form  of  government,  not 
adapted  to  this  great  nation,  and  that  its  establishment  in  this  country 
would  result  in  weak,  inefficient  and  bad  government,  and  thereby 
do  irreparable  injury  to  the  whole  country. 

Therefore,  he  submits  this  little  volume  for  the  candid  consider- 
ation of  all  intelligent  and  patriotic  citizens. 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 
Lyons,  N.  Y.,  May  25,  1912. 


INTRODUCTION 

(Reprinted  from  90th  Anniversaru  Issue  of  The  Lydt^^'R'ei^ib'icai 
Aug.  3,  1911) 

In  this  Ninetieth  Anniversary  of  The  Lyoni^  ]^ej}vMicdih',\  we  lafe 
printing  letters  of  former  President  Theodore  Roosevelt  and  the  Ed- 
itor of  The  Lyons  Republican,  Charles  H.  Betts,  which  will  explain 
themselves. 

Mr.  Betts  has  always  been  a  friend  and  great  admirer  of  Colonel 
Roosevelt  and  stood  with  him  and  voted  on  the  State  Committee  for 
him,  and  in  the  last  Republican  State  Convention,  when  many  of  his 
old  friends  opposed  him.  Mr.  Betts  did  not  agree  with  Colonel  Roose- 
velt on  the  question  of  direct  nominations,  yet  he  supported  him  in 
spite  of  this  fact. 

He,  however,  frankly  told  Colonel  Roosevelt  that  he  was  against 
the  proposition  and  he  voted  for  the  Wadsworth  amendment  to  the 
platform  in  the  RepubUcan  state  convention.  At  the  state  conven- 
tion. Colonel  Roosevelt,  after  he  was  elected  chairman,  in  his  speech, 
came  out  openly  in  favor  of  a  Pure  Democracy  and  in  addition  to 
direct  nominations  he  has  since  embraced  and  advocated  the  Initia- 
tive, the  Referendum  and  the  Recall,  all  of  which  are  destructive  of 
Representative  Government. 

In  a  recent  article  in  The  Outlook,  Colonel  Roosevelt  vigorously 
denounced  the  decision  of  the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals  in 
what  is  known  as  "The  Workmen's  Compensation  Case,"  the  Court 
having  declared  this  law  to  be  unconstitutional. 

Mr.  Betts,  after  reading  this  article  in  The  Outlook,  wrote  Colonel 
Roosevelt  a  letter  criticising  his  attitude  on  the  question  and  especial- 
ly his  intimation  that  the  courts  should  render  decisions  in  harmony 
with  public  sentiment. 

Colonel  Roosevelt  replied  in  his  usual  vigorous  and  emphatic 
style,  defending  his  position  and  criticising  the  position  taken  by  Mr. 
Betts,  alleging  that  it  was  not  his  own  position  but  the  position  out- 
lined in  Mr.  Betts'  letter  which  would  "lead  to  revolution." 

Mr.  Betts  replied  in  a  long  letter  in  which  he  vigorously  defends 
the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  then  takes  occasion  to  express 
his  own  views,  freely  and  frankly,  without  reserve,  upon  the  govern- 
mental questions,  on  which  he  differs  with  Colonel  Roosevelt. 

The  letters,  in  the  order  they  were  written,  follow: 


8      BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

MR.  BETTS'  FIRST  LETTER 

Lyons,  N.  Y.,  May  13,  191L 
Col.  Theodore  Eoopevplt, 
^  The  Outlook  Office, 
^N^eW  iYiorkCity.' 

My  dear  Colonel:  I  want  to  congratulate  you  upon  the  article 
which  you  wrote  in  a  recent  issue  of  The  Outlook,  entitled  "Murder 
is  Murder."  I  agree  fully  with  the  sentiments  expressed  in  your 
article  and  you  are  entirely  right  when  you  say  that  the  labor  leaders 
are  injuring  their  cause  by  the  course  they  are  pursuing  in  raising 
money  as  labor  organizations  to  defend  those  charged  with  the  crime 
of  murder. 

I  have  read,  however,  with  regret  your  article  in  The  Outlook 
of  May  thirteenth  attacking  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
and  to  the  sentiments  you  express  in  that  article  I  dissent  as  strongly 
as  I  approve  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  other  article.  If  the 
time  ever  comes  when  the  courts  of  this  country  interpret  the  laws 
in  harmony  with  ignorant  public  sentiment,  fanned  into  flame  by  un- 
informed and  ignorant  yellow  journals,  it  will  be  a  sad  day  for  this 
Republic. 

If  the  time  ever  comes  when  the  courts  through  fear  of  public 
clamour,  fanned  into  existence  by  muck  raking  reporters,  render  de- 
cisions not  in  harmony  with  the  law  and  with  precedent,  but  in 
harmony  with  public  clamour,  it  will  be  a  sad  day  for  this  Republic. 

If  the  time  ever  comes  when  the  courts  for  the  same  reason  throw 
written  constitutions  into  the  waste  basket  and  anarchy  takes  the 
place  of  constitution,  law  and  order,  it  will  be  a  sad  day  for  this 
Repubhc,  and  to  my  mind  any  man  who  advocates  such  a  course, 
however  honest  he  may  be,  must  of  necessity  be  an  enemy  to  the  best 
interests  of  his  country  and  to  mankind. 

The  three  requisites  of  good  government  are  order,  stability  and 
progress.  These  essentials  of  good  government  can  only  be  main- 
tained by  constitutions,  law,  order  and  a  fearless  judiciary.  I  have 
always  had  for  you  the  sincerest  admiration.  I  have  not  always  been 
able  to  agree  with  you  upon  all  public  questions  and  particularly  the 
question  of  direct  nominations,  but  your  attack  upon  the  Court  of 
Appeals  and  your  intimation  that  in  the  future  it  may  be  necessary 
to  force  the  courts  to  render  decisions  in  favor  of  the  views  of  par- 
ticular men  or  the  temporary  sentiment  of  the  hour  and  ignore  consti- 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION      9 

tutions  and  laws  in  rendering  their  decisions,  seems  to  me  to  go  so 
far  that  even  your  intimate  and  sincere  friends  must  not  only  regret 
your  action,  but  dissent  from  your  views. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  beheve  in  giving  every  other  man  the 
same  right  that  I  claim  for  myself,  and  that  is  the  right  to  express 
his  honest  views.  This  is  an  age  of  intellectual  hospitality  and 
toleration  is  the  rising  sun  of  our  twentieth  century  civilization. 
While  I  grant  to  you  the  rights  which  I  claim  for  myself,  yet  I,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  must  do  all  that  I  can  to  combat  the  theory  laid 
down  in  your  article  in  The  Outlook  of  May  thirteenth,  because  I 
firmly  believe  that  in  the  end  it  would  lead  to  political  anarchy 
and  useless  revolution. 

With  kind  regards,  I  am,  as  always, 

Your  friend, 
C.  H.  BETTS. 

COLONEL  ROOSEVELT'S  REPLY 

THE   OUTLOOK 

287  Fourth  Avenue,  New  York 

Office  of  Theodore  Roosevelt,  June  2,  1911. 
My  dear  Mr.  Betts :  Really,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  you  read  my 
article  on  the  Courts,  because  it  is  an  absurdity  to  say  that  I  had 
desired  the  Court  to  "render  decisions  in  favor  of  the  views  of  par- 
ticular men  or  the  temporary  sentiment  of  the  hour,  and  ignore  Con- 
stitutions and  law."  My  contention  is  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  in 
this  case  rendered  a  decision  simply  in  accordance  with  the  temporary 
sentiments  of  certain  particular  men  at  this  hour,  and  ignored  the 
Constitution  and  laws,  as  Marshall  always  interpreted  both  Constitu- 
tion and  laws,  and  that  their  conduct  was  a  most  flagrant  and  wanton 
abuse  of  a  great  power,  an  abuse  which,  if  continued,  will  render  it 
the  duty  of  all  patriotic  men  to  take  steps  that  will  at  least  minimize 
the  chance  of  such  action  in  the  future.  If  the  course  I  advocated 
in  The  Outlook  is  combated  with  permanent  success,  it  will  in  the  end 
bring  about  just  what  j^ou  say  you  fear,  i.  e.,  "pohtical  anarchy  and 
useless  revolution."  It  is  simple  nonsense  to  suppose  that  this  coun- 
try will  tolerate  permanently  a  line  of  action  like  that  you  are 
upholding  on  the  part  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.  Isolated  acts  of  the 
kind  our  people  may  tolerate  from  ignorance,  but  they  would  be  unfit 
for  self-government  if  they  submitted  permanently  to  such  a  course  of 


10    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

conduct;  and  if  the  position  outlined  in  your  letter  was  taken  as  a 
permanent  course  of  policy,  it  would  bring  about  a  revolution.  My 
plea  is  for  rational  growth ;  my  plea  is  that  the  Court  act  with  ordinary 
statesmanship,  ordinary  regard  for  the  Constitution,  as  a  living  aid 
to  growth,  not  as  a  straight  jacket;  ordinary  regard  for  the  laws, 
the  rights  of  humanity,  and  the  growth  of  civilization.  I  wish  to 
state  with  all  emphasis  that  no  man  who  takes  the  opposite  ground 
to  that  which  I  have  taken  in  the  article  in  question  has  any  right  to 
be  on  the  bench;  and  it  is  a  misfortune  to  have  him  there.  Four 
Federal  judges,  of  the  United  States'  Courts,  have  written  me  since 
that  article  appeared,  stating  that  they  absolutely  agree  with  it, 
that  they  regarded  the  action  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York 
as  so  utterly  reactionary  as  to  be  an  invitation  to  revolution,  and  that 
they  felt  I  was  rendering  a  real  and  conservative  public  service  in 
writing  as  I  did.  My  dear  Mr.  Betts,  have  you  forgotten  that  the  Re- 
publican party  was  founded  largely  to  protest  against  the  very  type 
of  view  concerning  the  Courts  which  you  now  uphold?  Have  you 
forgotten  Lincoln's  repeated  strictures  on  the  Supreme  Court  for  the 
Dred  Scott  decision?  That  decision  was  worse  in  degree,  but  not  in 
kind,  than  the  one  which  I  assail.  Have  you  forgotten  what  Lincoln 
wrote  in  his  first  inaugural  (in  justifying  the  position  he  had  repeat- 
edly taken,  that  he  would  endeavor  to  secure  a  reversal  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision — ^just  as  I  wish  this  New  York  decision  reversed) :  "If 
the  policy  of  the  government  upon  vital  questions  affecting  the  whole 
people  is  to  be  irrevocably  fixed  by  decisions  of  the  (court)  *  *  *  the 
people  will  have  ceased  to  be  their  own  rulers."  I  protest  against 
this  servile  view  merely  as  Abraham  Lincoln  protested. 

Sincerely  yours, 

THEODORE  ROOSEVELT. 


MR.  BETTS'  REJOINDER 

Lyons,  N.  Y.,  July  8,  1911. 
Col.  Theodore  Roosevelt, 

287  Fifth  Ave.,  New  York  City. 

My  dear  Col.  Roosevelt:  On  my  return  from  a  several  weeks' 
vacation,  yoiir  letter  of  June  2nd  is  before  me,  and  I  am  very  glad 
to  receive  the  same.  I  am  always  glad  to  read  your  vigorous  and 
frank  expressions  of  opinion,  whether  in  a  personal  communication 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    11 

or  a  public  periodical,  but  it  is  a  source  of  deep  regret  to  me  to  be 
unable  to  agree  with  the  opinions  of  a  man  whom  I  so  much  admire. 
You  say  that  four  Federal  judges  have  written  you  stating  that 
your  criticism  of  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York 
State  is  correct.  I  have  talked  with  a  great  many  lawyers  and  judges, 
every  one  of  whom  expressed  the  opposite  opinion.  This  only  illus- 
trates how  honest  men  may  differ,  and  proves  conclusively  that  the 
opinions  of  men  are  as  different  and  numerous  as  the  leaves  upon  the 
trees.     In  your  letter  you  say: 

"  Really,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  you  have  read  my 
article  on  the  Courts,  because  it  is  an  absurdity  to  say 
that  I  had  desired  the  Court  to  render  justice  in  favor  of 
the  views  of  particular  men  or  the  temporary  sentiment 
of  the  hour,  and  ignore  constitutions  and  law.  My  con- 
tention is  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  this  case  ren- 
dered a  decision  simply  in  accordance  with  the  tempo- 
rary sentiments  of  certain  particular  men  at  this  hour, 
and  ignored  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  as  Marshall 
always  interpreted  both  constitution  and  law,  and  that 
their  conduct  was  a  most  flagrant  and  wanton  abuse  of  a 
great  power.  An  abuse  which  if  continued,  will  render 
it  the  duty  of  patriotic  men  to  take  steps  that  will  at 
least  minimize  the  chances  of  such  action  in  the  future." 

IN  HARMONY  WITH  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Passing  over  the  implied  threat  contained  in  the  last  sentence 
that  the  Courts  must  render  their  decisions  in  harmony  with  public 
sentiment  or  suffer  the  consequences,  let  me  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  in  harmony  with 
the  Constitution  of  this  State,  and  I  can  hardly  conceive  how  you 
could  make  the  statements  which  you  have  made,  if  you  had  read  the 
full  text  of  the  Court's  decision. 

Article  1,  Section  2,  of  the  State  Constitution  says: 

"The  trial  by  jury  in  all  cases  where  it  has  been 
heretofore  used  shall  remain  inviolate /oreyer;  but  a  jury 
trial  may  be  waived  by  the  parties  in  all  civil  cases  in  the 
manner  to  be  prescribed  by  law." 

This  section  of  the  State  Constitution  guarantees  to  every  citizen 
the  right  to  a  hearing  before  a  jury  of  his  peers.  The  act  of  the 
legislature  which  the  Court  of  Appeals  declared  unconstitutional 
took  this  right  absolutely  away  from  a  certain  class  of  citizens,  who 
happen  to  be  employers. 


13    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

Section  219a  of  the  act  of  1910,  provides  for  the  scale  of  compen- 
sation an  employer  must  pay  to  an  employee's  heirs  when  such  em- 
ployee is  killed  by  an  accident.  This  compensation  is  awarded  by 
legislative  fiat,  without  giving  the  employer  a  hearing  before  any 
court  or  before  any  jury. 

Not  only  this,  if  the  employer  has  obeyed  the  law,  has  provided 
the  necessary  safe-guards  in  his  manufacturing  establishment  re- 
quired by  the  factory  inspection  law,  and  all  other  law,  and  one  of  his 
employees  is  killed  by  his  own  negligence  or  carelessness,  through 
his  own  fault  and  no  fault  of  his  employer,  yet  the  employer  must 
pay  over  a  certain  amount  of  his  property  to  the  widow  or  next  of 
kin  of  the  man  who  was  killed  in  an  accident  through  his  own  negli- 
gence or  carelessness,  and  the  innocent  employer  who  has  obeyed  the 
law  and  who  has  committed  no  fault  and  is  in  no  way  responsible  for 
the  accident,  under  this  statute  is  to  have  a  part  of  his  property 
taken  away  from  him  and  given  to  another,  without  ever  having  a 
hearing  in  court  or  the  justice  of  the  claim  against  him  passed  upon 
by  a  jury.  If  this  is  not  taking  property  in  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  without  "due  process  of  law,"  then  words  have  lost  their 
meaning  and  acts  have  been  divorced  from  their  consequences. 

THE   COURTIS   OPINION 

The  learned  court,  in  its  decision,  says: 

"In  all  cases  where  there  is  a  right  to  trial  by  jury 
there  are  two  elements  which  necessarily  enter  into  a 
verdict  for  the  plaintiff: 

First — The  right  to  recovery. 

Second — The  amount  of  the  recovery. 

It  is  as  much  the  right  of  a  defendant  to  have  a 
jury  assess  the  damages  claimed  against  him,  as  it  is  to 
have  the  question  of  his  liability  determined  by  the 
same  body. 

It  is  equally  obvious  it  seems  to  us  that  it  is  the  in- 
tention of  the  section  of  the  Constitution  (Art.  1,  Sec. 
2)  to  provide  that  in  all  controversies  in  the  Courts  of 
law  either  side  should  finally  have  a  right  to  a  jury  trial 
on  the  question  of  liability,  and  however  successful  or 
unsuccessful  jury  trials  may  be  in  cases  of  employers' 
liability  or  any  other  cases,  the  solemn  mandate  of  the 
Constitution  cannot  be  set  aside." 

These  clear  and  emphatic  words  cannot  be  misunderstood  by  any 
intelligent  citizen.    They  carry  conviction  to  every  open  mind.    The 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    13 

decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution, 
is  sound  in  law,  is  sanctioned  by  justice  and  confirmed  by  reason  and 
common  sense. 

And  right  here  I  wish  to  say,  and  I  say  it  without  fear  of  success- 
ful contradiction,  that  there  is  no  place  on  earth,  since  the  dawn  of 
civilization,  where  the  sacred  goddesses  of  liberty  and  justice  have 
so  often  met  in  fond  embrace,  as  under  the  impartial  folds  of  the 
ermine  of  an  Independent  Judiciary. 

I  will  not  stop  here  to  discuss  elaborately  the  decision  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Workmen's  Compensation  case,  and  your 
attack  upon  that  decision.  I  have  both  your  article  and  a  full  text 
of  the  decision  of  the  Court  before  me  and  I  am  preparing  an  article 
on  that  subject,  which  I  shall  publish  later,  in  which  I  shall  endeavor 
to  do  both  you  and  the  Court  justice. 

WOULD    BRING   ABOUT   A   REVOLUTION 

In  your  letter  among  other  things  you  say: 

"If  the  position  outlined  in  your  letter  was  taken  as 
a  permanent  policy,  it  would  bring  about  a  revolution." 

In  view  of  this  charge  I  feel  warranted  in  communicating  to  you 
freely,  frankly  and  without  reserve,  my  ideas.  This  is  my  justifica- 
tion for  the  length  of  this  communication. 

I  have  always  been  one  of  your  devoted  admirers,  and  nine  times 
out  of  ten,  I  have  been  able  to  agree  with  you  throughout  your  dis- 
tinguished public  career.  I  fully  appreciate  the  great  service  which 
you  have  rendered  to  your  country  and  to  mankind,  and  I  have 
always  contended,  and  still  contend,  that  you  will  take  your  place  in 
history  beside  Washington  and  Lincoln. 

Whatever  difference  of  opinion  we  may  have  upon  questions  of 
government  will  never  lessen  in  any  degree  my  personal  regard  for  you, 
or  my  appreciation  of  your  magnificent  achievements.  You  have 
done  more  than  any  other  one  man  in  this  country  to  awaken  public 
interest  and  quicken  the  public  conscience  and  set  in  motion  needed 
reforms,  and  for  this  you  are  entitled  to  the  respect  and  esteem  of 
every  one  of  your  fellow  countrymen.  But  it  does  seem  to  me  that 
in  the  last  year  you  have  been  drifting  away  from  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  government  and  teaching  doctrines  inconsistent  with 
our  enlightened  representative  system. 

You  know  that  I  have  never  been  able  to  agree  with  you  upon 
the  question  of  Direct  Nominations,  and  I  was  pained  and  surprised 


14    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

to  see  you  go  so  far  as  to  advocate  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum 
and  the  Recall.  I  always  supposed  that  you  were  a  statesman  of  the 
Hamiltonian  school,  and  if  I  know  anything  about  the  statesmanship 
of  Hamilton,  Direct  Nominations,  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and 
the  Recall  are  as  far  from  the  teachings  of  Hamilton  as  the  north  pole 
is  from  the  south  pole. 

TWO    SCHOOLS    OF    STATESMEN 

There  have  been  in  this  country  two  different  schools  of  states- 
men. One  school  was  founded  and  led  by  Hamilton,  the  other  by 
Jefferson.  Hamilton  was  one  of  the  greatest  creative  and  constructive 
statesmen  the  world  has  ever  known.  Jefferson  was  one  of  the  most 
plausible  phrase-makers  and  sophists. 

I  believe  that  these  two  schools  of  statesmen  are  necessary;  that 
they  were  and  are  a  necessary  outgrowth  of  conditions.  I  regard 
Clay,  Webster,  Seward,  Lincoln,  Blaine,  Conkhn,  McKinley,  Lodge, 
Depew,  Black,  Root  and  Taft  as  the  direct  descendants  of  the  Hamil- 
tonian school  of  statesmanship.  I  regard  Bryan,  Borah,  Bourne, 
Bristow,  Poindexter,  La  Follette  and  Hearst  as  the  direct  descendants 
of  the  Jeffersonian  school  of  statesmanship. 

These  two  contending  schools  of  statesmanship  have  ever  been  a 
check  on  each  other  and  the  conflict  between  the  conservatism  of 
the  one  and  the  radicalism  of  the  other  has  resulted  in  a  steady  and 
reasonable  progress.  But  there  is  one  thing  that  I  have  always  no- 
ticed in  reading  history  and  that  is,  when  the  phrase-maker  and  the 
sophist  gets  in  office  he  is  always  obliged  to  discard  his  impractical 
theories  and  square  his  performance  with  the  doctrines  of  the  practical 
and  constructive  statesman. 

For  instance,  when  Jefferson  became  President  of  the  United 
States,  instead  of  putting  his  theories  into  practice,  he  was  obliged 
to  adopt  the  principles  laid  down  by  Hamilton,  and  Prof.  Edward 
Elliott,  in  his  splendid  work  entitled  "The  Biographical  Story  of  the 
Constitution,"  in  summing  up  Jefferson's  career,  very  truthfully  says: 

"His  success  was  in  his  faith,  not  in  his  works. 
From  the  standpoint  of  achievement  in  national  affairs, 
only  the  Louisiana  purchase  saves  him  from  complete 
failure;  from  the  standpoint  of  political  influence  his 
faith  in  the  people  makes  him  a  vital  force  in  the  world 
today.  His  greatest  fault  was  that  'he  died  as  he  lived, 
in  the  odor  of  phrases.'  His  greatest  virtue  that  he  was 
wise  enough  to  sacrifice  phrases  to  reality,  to  accept  in 
practice  what  he  rejected  in  theory." 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    15 

In  direct  opposition  to  his  own  teachings  Jefferson  put  into 
operation  the  doctrines  of  Hamilton  relative  to  the  acquisition  of  new 
territory  in  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  his  only  great  achievement. 

What  a  contrast  the  career  of  Hamilton  presents.  There  is 
hardly  anything  of  permanence  in  our  institutions  today  that  was  not 
originally  conceived  by  him.  It  was  largely  through  his  genius  that 
the  foundation  of  this  Republic  was  laid  so  deep  and  broad  that  upon 
it  has  been  reared  the  grandest  governmental  structure  the  world 
has  ever  known.     In  speaking  of  Hamilton,  Daniel  Webster  said: 

"He  smote  the  rock  of  the  national  resources  and 
abundant  streams  of  revenue  gushed  forth;  he  touched 
the  dead  corpse  of  PubHc  Credit  and  it  sprang  upon  its 
feet." 

Prof.  Edward  Eliott,  speaking  of  Hamilton's  statesmanship,  says: 

"The  great  passion  of  Hamilton's  hfe  was  love  of 
an  orderly  direction  in  human  affairs;  mankind  in  the 
mass  he  regarded  as  weak,  and  the  weakness  demanded 
the  strength  of  government  if  the  human  race  was  to 
enjoy  the  blessings  of  liberty.  A  strong  government  was 
necessary  to  restrain  the  natural  disorders  of  society, 
whatever  the  character  of  its  organization.  Order  and 
strength  were  inseparable  in  all  his  thoughts  of  govern- 
ment, his  practical  experience  had  demonstrated  that 
social  disorder  and  governmental  weakness  were  correla- 
tive terms  and  the  verdict  of  history  has  confirmed  his 
experienced 

Frederick  Scott  Oliver,  an  English  writer,  in  his  great  work 
declares  that  Hamilton  was  a  world  statesman.    He  says: 

"The  qualities  of  his  statesmanship,  the  nature  of 
that  inarticulate  desire  for  Union  on  which  he  built  the 
strength  and  obstinacy  of  those  difficulties  which  he  en- 
countered at  every  turn,  are  subjects  of  universal  inter- 
est. He  is  no  local  hero,  but  one  whose  work  and  great- 
ness has  a  meaning  for  the  Whole  World." 

Now,  my  dear  Col,  Roosevelt,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  descendants 
of  the  Hamiltonian  school  have  been  keeping  step  with  the  onward 
march  of  civilization  and  progress,  but  they  propose  to  go  only  so 
fast  as  they  can  go  and  remain  within  the  line  of  reason,  of  law  and 
of  the  Constitution.  On  the  other  hand  it  seems  to  me  that  the  des- 
cendants of  the  Jeffersonian  school  have  become  so  radical  that  they 
are  willing  to  supplant  reason  with  hysteria  and  leap  over  the  law 
and  the  Constitution  into  the  maelstrom  of  Democratic  Socialism. 


16    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

It  is  this  head-long  course,  away  from  the  fundamental  principles  of 
representative  government  into  the  Populistic  schemes  of  Direct 
Nominations,  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the  Recall,  which  in 
the  last  analysis  means  Democratic  Socialism,  against  which  I  protest 
and  shall  forever  fight. 

I  still  believe  in  our  enlightened  system  of  representative  govern- 
ment, and  I  believe  that  it  has  been  the  greatest  success  of  any 
government  that  was  ever  instituted  among  men,  and  I  appeal  to  the 
history  of  this  country  to  prove  it.  I  contend  that  wherever  the 
machinery  of  our  representative  government  has  been  clogged  or 
deranged,  it  has  not  been  the  fault  of  the  system,  but  it  has  been  the 
fault  of  men.  It  has  been  the  fault  of  human  nature.  It  has  been  the 
weakness  and  wickedness  of  men  that  has  deranged  our  system 
wherever  it  has  been  deranged,  and  no  system  of  government  will 
produce  perfect  results  with  imperfect  human  nature. 

Not  only  this,  but  Direct  Nominations,  the  Initiative,  the  Referen- 
dum and  the  Recall,  open  a  wider  field  for  the  exhibition  and  display  of 
the  very  weakness  and  wickedness  of  which  you  and  others  now  com- 
plain. Under  this  system  the  very  elements  in  human  nature  which 
have  been  responsible  for  clogging  and  deranging  temporarily  in 
some  cases  our  present  system,  will  have  a  larger  field  for  activity, 
and  will  multiply  our  present  evils  a  hundred  fold. 

THE   TWO    POSITIONS   DEFINED 

You  say  that  the  doctrines  which  I  teach  will  lead  to  revolution, 
while  I  contend  that  it  is  you  who  are  sowing  the  seeds  of  revolution. 
My  conception  of  the  difference  between  your  position  and  mine  is 
this:  I  am,  in  my  feeble  way,  endeavoring  to  teach  the  people  that 
it  is  always  wiser,  safer  and  better  for  them  to  take  the  sober  second 
thought,  act  on  full  and  correct  information,  and  then  follow  the 
steady,  white  light  of  Reason. 

On  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  me  that  you  are  trying  to  teach 
the  people  to  act  on  sudden  impulse  and  uninformed  surface  senti- 
ment and  follow  the  flickering,  fleeting  flame  of  temporary  Emotion. 

I  cannot  agree  with  you  when  you  say  that  a  Judge  who  will 
render  a  decision  such  as  that  rendered  by  our  Court  of  Appeals  has 
"  no  right  to  sit  upon  the  bench."  My  opinion  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
of  the  State  of  New  York  is  more  accurately  reflected  by  the  dis- 
tinguished Justice  Harlan,  who,  in  a  recent  speech  to  the  legislature, 
said  that  the  decisions  of  the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals  were 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    17 

always  received  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  with  high  re- 
spect and  great  consideration. 

In  your  letter  you  express  your  opinions  frankly  and  with  great 
force  and  emphasis.  I  respect  you  for  doing  this.  I  have  always 
admired  you  for  having  the  courage  to  tell  exactly  what  you  think, 
and  I  could  not  respect  myself  if  I  did  not  follow  your  example  in 
this  regard. 

Therefore,  permit  me  to  say,  that  when  you  returned  from  Europe 
and  received  the  greatest  ovation  ever  tendered  to  an  American  citi- 
zen, you  at  once  ignored  the  honest  advice  and  kindly  warnings  of 
your  sincere  and  life-long  friends,  including  the  writer,  and  surrounded 
yourself  with  the  Hughes  high-brows  and  the  Abbott  theologians 
and  courageously  assumed  all  the  burdens  of  both  aggregations. 
You  allowed  them  to  place  upon  your  strong  and  powerful  back  all  of 
their  theories,  fads,  fallacies  and  fancies,  since  which  time  you  have 
been  out  of  touch  with  the  real  political  situation  in  this  country. 
For  a  confirmation  of  this  statement  consult  the  last  election  returns. 

In  this  state  you  made  an  ethical  and  brilliant  appeal  to  the 
people.  Murphy  made  a  strong  cash  appeal  to  the  same  people  and 
on  account  of  their  high  intelligence  and  extreme  virtue.  Murphy  won. 

In  this  connection  I  wish  to  say,  despite  all  of  his  influence,  with 
a  silver  lining,  Murphy  could  not  have  won  if  he  had  been  confronted 
by  four  years  of  the  solid  achievements  of  a  Republican  party  admin- 
istration, instead  of  four  years  of  executive  personal  exploitation.  It 
was  the  reaction  from  the  excesses  and  horrors  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion that  resulted  in  the  restoration  of  the  Bourbon  kings,  and  it  was 
the  reaction  from  the  excessive  party  treason  and  fake  reforms  of 
the  Hughes  administration  that  resulted  in  the  restoration  of  Tam- 
many Hall,  and  for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  has  extended  the 
power  of  that  corrupt  organization  over  the  entire  state,  so  that  at 
this  moment  we  are  in  the  center  of  an  era  of  political  piracy,  spolia- 
tion and  plunder,  such  as  the  state  has  not  witnessed  since  the  days 
of  Tweed. 

Roosevelt's  speech  at  convention 

At  the  Republican  State  Convention  held  at  Saratoga,  Sept.  27th, 
1910,  you  made  the  statement  in  your  speech  that  those  who  favor 
direct  nominations  trust  the  people,  while  those  who  do  not  favor 
direct  nominations  do  not  trust  the  people.  This  is  the  exact  opposite 
of  the  facts. 


18    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

Let  us  examine  this  proposition  for  a  moment.  We  who  beUeve 
in  the  system  of  representative  government,  do  trust  the  people.  We 
trust  them  to  act  for  themselves  within  the  circle  of  activity  where 
they  can  obtain  correct  information  to  act  upon. 

We  are  in  favor  of  trusting  the  people  to  pick  out  their  candi- 
dates and  their  delegates  in  their  immediate  community,  in  their 
village,  their  town  or  their  ward,  where  they  know  the  reputation, 
character,  standing,  ability  and  general  fitness  of  the  men  whom 
they  are  to  select  as  representatives. 

In  other  words,  we  are  willing  to  trust  the  people  to  exercise 
their  intelligence  where  they  have  the  information  to  exercise  their 
intelligence  on.  But  those  who  believe  in  direct  nominations  do 
not  so  trust  the  people.  They  say  that  the  people  cannot  he  trusted 
to  use  their  own  personal  knowledge  and  personal  information  in 
regard  to  selecting  delegates  in  their  own  communities  where  they 
have  accurate  information. 

They  contend  that  this  system  of  government  has  broken  down 
and  proved  a  failure,  and  therefore  they  propose  a  system  whereby 
the  people  shall  be  called  upon  to  act  beyond  the  sphere  where  they 
can  get  accurate  information  and  have  personal  knowledge,  and  they 
contend  that  the  people  can  act  more  intelligently  and  wisely  by 
guessing  what  is  the  best  thing  to  do,  than  by  knowing  what  is  the 
best  thing  to  do. 

For  let  it  be  remembered,  the  people  can  know  when  they  have 
correct  information  and  they  cannot  know  without  such  information. 

If  the  people  cannot  intelligently  and  properly  select  delegates  in 
their  towns  and  wards,  in  their  immediate  vicinity,  where  they  have 
the  advantage  of  personal  acquaintance,  personal  knowledge  and 
correct  information  about  the  character,  standing  and  fitness  of  the 
delegates  to  be  selected  from  their  friends  and  neighbors,  then  how 
in  the  name  of  common  sense  are  they  to  make  an  intelligent  and 
wise  selection  of  candidates  10  and  20  and  sometimes  100  and  300 
miles  away,  under  direct  nominations,  where  the  people  are  absolute- 
ly deprived  of  the  advantage  of  personal  acquaintance  and  reliable 
information? 

To  argue  that  the  people  can  select  candidates  hundreds  of  miles 
away,  whom  they  have  never  seen  and  have  only  second-hand  and 
conflicting  information  about  better  than  they  can  select  delegates 
in  their  own  towns,  from  their  friends  and  neighbors,  with  whom  they 
are  personally  acquainted,  and  about  whom  they  have  accurate  infor- 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION^    19 

mation,  is  to  argue  an  absurdity.  It  is  arguing  to  the  effect  that  lack 
of  any  knowledge  whatever  is  a  better  guide  than  personal  knowledge 
and  that  darkness  is  a  better  and  more  reliable  guide  than  light. 

It  is  a  recognized  law  of  psychology  that  accuracy  of  perception 
grows  less  as  the  square  of  the  distance  increases.  Objects  beyond 
our  reach,  like  candidates  miles  away,  and  like  the  clouds,  are  not 
truthfully  pictured.  The  senses  deal  correctly  only  with  the  near  and 
familiar.  Therefore,  direct  nominations  is  in  conflict  with  the 
science  of  psychology  and  the  laws  of  nature. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  representative  delegate  system,  which 
provides  that  the  people  shall  select  their  delegates  from  small  civil 
divisions — consisting  of  a  town  or  a  ward  where  they  have  personal 
knowledge  and  first-hand  information  upon  which  to  base  their 
action,  is  in  harmony  with  political,  social  and  psychological  science. 

It  was  the  consideration  of  these  facts  that  led  the  wise  framers 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  to  make  this  a  Representative  Republic, 
instead  of  a  Pure  Democracy.  They  knew  the  people  could  not  act 
intelligently  and  wisely  beyond  the  sphere  where  they  could  get  first 
hand,  reliable  and  accurate  information  to  act  upon,  and  so  they  pro- 
vided that  in  that  distant  sphere  the  people  should  act  through 
representatives  selected  from  their  local  friends,  neighbors  and  prom- 
inent citizens.     Their  wisdom  has  never  been  excelled. 

One  of  the  stock  arguments  of  our  modern  demagogues  is  that 
the  people  are  directly  interested  in  the  government  and  in  the  legis- 
lation, and  therefore  they  should  directly  legislate  and  administer 
the  government.  This  is  plausible,  this  sounds  fine,  but  I  have  noticed 
that  while  the  people  are  also  directly  interested  in  their  health,  they 
employ  a  trusted,  experienced  and  informed  physician  to  treat  them 
when  they  are  ill.  When  they  have  a  law  suit  they  employ  a  trained 
and  experienced  lawyer,  in  whom  they  have  confidence,  to  try  their 
case. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  are  directly  interested  in  their 
health  and  in  winning  their  law  suit,  they  have  the  intelligence  and 
the  judgment  to  reaUze  that  he  who  is  fitted  to  try  their  law  suit 
and  treat  their  disease,  must  be  someone  who  has  specially  fitted  him- 
self for  that  purpose,  and  this  is  no  more  true  than  it  is  that  those 
who  engage  in  legislation  and  government  should  be  equally  trained 
and  qualified  by  ability,  experience  and  information  to  understand 
and  comprehend  the  intricate  sciences  of  legislation  and  government. 


20    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

In  his  great  speech  delivered  in  the  New  York  State  Convention, 
Hamilton  said : 

"It  has  been  observed  that  a  pure  Democracy,  if  it 
were  practical,  would  be  the  most  perfect  government. 
EXPERIENCE  HAS  PROVED  THAT  NO  POSI- 
TION IN  POLITICS  IS  MORE  FALSE  THAN  THIS. 
The  ancient  democracies,  in  which  the  people  them- 
selves deliberated,  never  possessed  one  feature  of  good 
government.  Their  very  character  was  tyranny,  their 
figure  deformity.  When  they  assembled  the  field  of  de- 
bate presented  an  ungovernable  mob,  not  only  incapable 
of  deliberation,  but  prepared  for  every  enormity.  In 
these  assemblies  the  enemies  of  the  people  brought  for- 
ward their  plans  of  ambition  systematically.  They 
were  opposed  by  their  enemies  of  another  party;  and  it 
became  a  matter  of  contingency  whether  the  people  sub- 
jected themselves  to  be  led  blindly  by  one  tyrant  or  by 
another." 

And  again,  Hamilton,  who  was  acquainted  with  history,  and  who 
knew  that  direct  popular  government  and  attempted  mass  action  was 
the  rock  upon  which  all  of  the  ancient  Republics  were  wrecked,  and 
that  too  much  democracy  leads  to  despotism  and  then  to  monarchy 
said: 

"Real  hberty  is  never  found  in  despotisms,  gr  the 
extremes  of  democracy,  but  in  moderate  governments. 
As  long  as  offices  are  open  to  all  men,  and  no  constitu- 
tional rank  is  established,  it  is  PURE  REPUBLICAN- 
ISM. But  if  we  incline  too  much  to  Democracy,  we  shall 
soon  shoot  into  a  Monarchy." 

HAMILTON    AND    JEFFERSON    AGREE 

Although  Hamilton  and  Jefferson  represented  opposite  schools 
of  statesmanship,  yet  they  both  agreed  that  a  Representative  Repub- 
lic was  the  only  form  of  government  adapted  to  a  large  territory  and 
large  population,  and  so  Jefferson  said: 

"Let  us  then,  with  courage  and  confidence  pursue 
our  own  Federal  and  Republican  principles,  our  attach- 
ment to  Union  and  Representative  government. 

"If  there  be  any  among  us  who  would  like  to  dis- 
solve this  union,  or  change  its  Republican  form,  let  them 
stand  undisturbed  as  monuments  to  the  safety  with 
which  error  of  opinion  may  be  tolerated  when  Reason  is 
left  free  to  combat  it." 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    21 

I  predict  that  in  the  not  distant  future  the  people  of  this  coun- 
try will  awaken  to  a  realization  of  the  fact  that  the  wisdom  of  the 
fathers  who  founded  this  Republic,  is  a  more  reliable  and  trust- 
worthy guide  than  the  noise  of  their  sons. 

It  is  not  systems  that  make  men,  it  is  men  that  make  systems. 
It  is  not  systems  and  laws  that  inject  into  the  human  heart  dishon- 
esty, vice,  viciousness  and  corruption,  neither  can  systems  and  laws 
eliminate  these  elements  from  human  nature.  Reform  must  com- 
mence within  the  individual  and  it  can  take  place  nowhere  else. 

These  are  plain,  simple  facts  which  can  be  readily  understood  and 
comprehended  by  the  ordinarily  intelligent  school  boy.  And  yet, 
they  are  facts  which  are  overlooked  by  our  skirt-dancing  politicians, 
moving  picture  statesmen  and  vaudeville  demagogues.  And  that  is 
what  is  the  matter  with  the  country.  It  is  not  the  representative 
system,  but  it  is  the  methods  employed  by  the  dishonest  or  the  ignor- 
ant and  uninformed  who  are  trying  to  administer  the  system.  The 
people  should  have  intelligence  enough  to  select  able  and  honest 
representatives.  This  is  all  that  is  needed,  and  if  they  cannot  select 
good  delegates  at  home  under  our  present  system,  they  certainly  can- 
not select  good  candidates  away  from  home,  under  direct  nomina- 
tions. 

TELL   THE    PEOPLE   THE   TRUTH 

Let  US  be  honest  with  the  people.  Let  us  tell  them  the  truth.  Let 
us  not  flatter  them  and  tell  them  that  they  are  all  right  and  their 
representatives  all  wrong,  because  this  is  not  the  case.  If  you  were 
sick  and  called  a  doctor  you  would  want  him  to  tell  you  the  truth, 
and  if  he  were  honest  he  would  do  so.  You  would  not  want  him  to 
flatter  you  and  tell  you  that  you  were  all  right  and  let  the  disease 
devour  you,  but  that  is  the  course  pursued  by  many  of  our  modern 
demagogues. 

They  are  telling  the  people  that  they  are  all  right,  but  that  their 
system  of  government  is  all  wrong,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
fault  is  in  the  people  themselves  and  not  in  their  government.  If  the 
people  were  all  honest,  were  all  unselfish,  were  all  intelligent  and 
thoroughly  civilized,  there  would  be  no  trouble  in  working  the  machin- 
ery of  our  government,  and  there  would  be  no  trouble  in  selecting 
from  their  number,  honest,  faithful  and  conscientious  representatives 
to  administer  the  government. 

It  is  not  the  system  of  government  that  is  at  fault;  it  is  the  sus- 


22    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

tern  of  human  nature,  and  to  try  to  reform  the  people  by  changing 
their  free  representative  government  is  as  absurd  and  ridiculous  as 
it  would  be  to  try  to  reform  the  people  by  changing  the  cut  of  their 
clothes. 

A  simple  or  pure  democracy  mixes  intelligence  and  ignorance, 
folly  and  wisdom,  vice  and  virtue,  inexperience  and  experience,  dem- 
agogy and  statesmanship  altogether  in  hopeless  confusion  and  the 
had  neutralizes  the  good  and  pulls  both  the  intellectual  and  moral  standard 
down  to  the  dead  level  of  mediocrity,  but  when  we  engraft  upon  a  pure 
democracy  the  representative  system,  we  then  enable  the  people  to 
pick  out  men  of  character,  experience,  wisdom  and  statesmanship, 
wherever  they  can  be  found,  and  assemble  them  in  a  representative 
body — in  a  legislature  or  a  convention,  where  they  can  act  for  the 
public  good. 

In  this  way,  by  this  system  of  government,  action  can  be  obtained 
on  a  higher  level  and  a  more  intelligent  basis,  than  it  can  be  obtained 
by  the  great  mass  of  people  acting  for  themselves. 

Not  only  this,  but  such  representatives  are  always  in  a  position 
to  obtain  important  facts  and  valuable  information  that  the  masses 
of  the  people  could  never  obtain  in  the  necessary  time  for  govern- 
mental action.  Let  me  illustrate.  When  you  were  President,  you 
were  in  possession  of  important  facts  and  valuable  information, 
which  led  you,  as  the  people's  representative,  to  take  Panama. 

Suppose  you  had  been  obliged  to  wait  for  the  people  to  obtain 
and  assimilate  and  understand  all  the  facts  in  your  possession,  and 
then  wait  for  the  people  to  take  the  initiative,  do  you  think  we  would 
ever  have  had  Panama?  And  suppose  you  had  been  obliged  to  submit 
the  whole  proposition  to  the  Referendum,  do  you  not  know  that  under 
such  a  system  the  Panama  Canal,  which  is  now  being  constructed  and 
will  soon  be  completed,  would  forever  have  remained  the  dream  of 
the  American  statesman. 

Montesquieu  had  a  clear  conception  of  the  science  of  government 
when  he  said: 

''As  most  citizens  have  sufficient  ability  to  choose, 
although  unqualified  to  be  chosen,  so  the  people,  though 
capable  of  calling  others  to  account  for  their  administra- 
tion, are  incapable  of  conducting  the  administration 
themselves. 

''The  public  business  must  be  carried  on  with  a  cer- 
tain motion,  neither  too  quick  nor  too  slow.  But  the 
motion  of  the  people  is  always  either  too  remiss  or  too 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    23 

violent.  Sometimes  with  a  hundred  thousand  arms  they 
overturn  all  before  them;  and  sometimes  with  a  hundred 
thousand  feet  they  creep  like  insects. 

When  this  direct  nominations  theory,  and  all  of  the  other  Popu- 
listic  theories,  are  reduced  to  the  last  analysis  and  subjected  to  the 
light  of  reason,  their  fallacies  fade  and  vanish  one  by  one  like  dew 
before  the  shining  sun. 

In  closing  the  discussion  on  this  point,  let  me  make  myself  clear, 
let  me  make  myself  explicit. 

I  contend  that  to  favor  the  present  system  which  permits  the 
people  to  select  their  delegates  or  representatives  in  their  own  towns 
and  wards,  where  they  have  the  benefit  of  the  light  of  experience, 
personal  acquaintance,  personal  knowledge  and  full  and  reliable  in- 
formation about  such  representatives,  as  I  do,  is  to  place  absolute 
confidence  and  trust  in  the  people  and  in  their  intelligence  and  their 
judgment. 

I  further  contend  that  to  favor  the  changing  of  this  system  so  as 
to  extinguish  the  light  of  experience,  personal  acquaintance,  personal 
knowledge  and  full  and  reliable  information  about  such  representa- 
tives, as  you  do,  and  require  the  people  to  select  candidates  in  the 
dark,  hundreds  of  miles  away,  by  the  scheme  of  direct  nominations, 
is  to  distrust  and  discredit  the  people,  and  insult  their  intelligence 
by  contending  that  they  can  act  more  wisely  in  the  dark  than  they  can  in 
the  light. 

wooDRow  Wilson's  bad  example 

I  have  confidence  in  the  open  mindedness  and  sincerity  of  the 
American  people;  I  believe  that  they  love  their  country,  that  they 
are  patriotic  and  that  they  want  to  know  the  actual  truth  about  all 
public  questions.  Therefore,  I  have  no  sympathy  with  the  cowards  in 
public  life,  who  advocate  what  they  do  not  believe  and  what  they 
know  to  be  wrong,  simply  because  it  is  temporarily  popular,  and  who 
support  measures  against  their  clear  convictions  and  honest  judgment. 

Woodrow  Wilson,  when  he  was  President  of  Princeton  University, 
when  he  was  a  scholar,  thinker,  statesman  and  philosopher,  writing 
of  direct  popular  government  as  involved  in  Direct  Nominations,  the 
Initiative  and  the  Referendum,  said: 

"Where  it  (the  Referendum)  has  been  employed  it 
has  not  promised  either  progress  or  enlightenment,  lead- 
ing rather  to  doubtful  experiment  and  to  reactionary 
displays  of  prejudice,  than  to  really  useful  legislation. 


24    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

"A  government  must  have  organs;  it  cannot  act  in- 
organically, by  masses.  It  must  have  a  law  making  body ; 
it  can  no  more  make  law  through  the  voters  than  it  can 
make  law  through  its  newspapers." 

Later,  after  he  had  been  elected  to  office  and  he  became  ambitious 
to  be  nominated  for  president,  he  began  to  trim  his  sails  to  catch  the 
popular  breeze,  and  while  on  a  recent  stumping  tour,  speaking  as  a 
politician  instead  of  a  statesman,  as  a  demagogue  instead  of  a  philos- 
opher, he  said: 

"To  nullify  bad  legislation  the  Referendum  must  be 
adopted,  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  time  until  it  will  be 
extended  to  the  nation." 

Let  us  not  imitate  Woodrow  Wilson.  Let  us  not  be  hypocrites 
to  obtain  a  public  office.  Let  us  not  strike  a  dramatic  "holier  than 
thou"  attitude,  roll  our  eyes  to  Heaven,  and  with  honeyed  words  of 
flattery  on  our  lips  and  deception  and  hypocrisy  in  our  hearts,  preach 
what  we  do  not  believe. 

Let  us  not  waste  our  time  preaching  about  "moral  uplift,"  but  let 
us  get  down  to  business  and  preach  the  good  old  fashioned  doctrine 
of  common  honesty.  We  can  rear  splendid  ideals  on  the  foundation 
of  common  honesty,  but  we  can  never  rear  high  ideals  on  the  founda- 
tion of  hypocrisy. 

This  leads  me  to  the  observation  that  hypocrisy  is  the  cancer 
that  is  eating  honesty  out  of  the  heart  of  humanity.  The  best  way 
to  reform  humanity  is  to  have  a  surgical  operation  and  remove  the 
malignant  growth. 

The  man  who  sells  his  honest  convictions  for  an  office  is  as  dis- 
honest and  as  dishonorable  as  the  man  who  sells  his  vote  for  money. 
He  is  more  dishonorable  than  the  poor  man  who  sells  his  vote,  be- 
cause he  needs  the  money.  Honor  purchased  with  the  usury  of  self 
respect  is  not  worth  having;  honor  bought  with  the  sacrifice  of  honest 
convictions  becomes  a  badge  of  infamy. 

COMPOSITION    or    THE   PUBLIC 

I  know  that  it  is  the  modern  fashion  to  flatter  the  people,  to  fool 
the  people  and  make  them  believe  that  they  know  all  about  the  science 
of  government,  but  notwithstanding  this  I  have  no  illusions  about  the 
public.  I  know  exactly  of  what  it  is  composed.  It  is  composed  of 
the  intelligent  and  the  ignorant,  the  virtuous  and  the  vicious,  the 
honest  and  the  dishonest,  the  patriot  and  the  hypocrite,  the  Chris- 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    25 

tian  and  the  criminal,  the  fool  and  the  sage,  the  politician  and  the 
demagogue,  the  "floater"  and  the  statesman. 

I  also  know  that  the  people's  representatives  sometimes  betray 
their  trust,  but  I  make  the  contention  that  the  per  cent,  of  honest 
representatives  in  the  political  world  is  as  large  as  the  per  cent,  of 
honest  representatives  in  any  other  field  of  human  activity.  I  make 
the  further  contention  that  the  per  cent,  of  honest  men  among  the 
people's  representatives  is  higher  than  the  per  cent,  of  honest  men 
among  the  people  themselves,  because  the  representatives  are  men  of 
more  than  average  ability,  standing  and  character,  and  are  selected 
for  this  reason. 

Take  the  case  of  Ohio.  To  be  sure,  a  few  of  the  members  of 
the  legislature  seemed  to  have  been  guilty  of  bribery,  but  what  about 
Adams  county,  where  over  one-half  of  the  voting  population  have 
confessed  that  they  were  corruptionists  on  election  day  and  have  been 
disfranchised  on  that  account.  How  many  of  the  voters  have  not 
confessed,  and  how  many  Adams  counties  are  there  in  the  United 
States? 

I  know  something  about  the  history  of  the  world  as  it  is  written 
in  rocks  and  books.  I  know  that  man  is  an  animal  who  has  become 
polished,  refined  and  rendered  kind,  generous  and  attractive  by  the 
veneer  of  civilization,  and  that  under  this  veneer,  liable  to  be  fanned 
into  activity  at  any  time,  lies  dormant  all  of  the  brutal  instincts  be- 
queathed to  him  by  a  savage  ancestry.  I  am  familiar  with  the  out- 
bursts of  human  temper,  the  hurricanes  of  human  passion,  and  the 
whirlwinds  of  human  brutality,  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  pages  of 
history.  I  know  that  it  was  the  ignorance,  bigotry  and  barbarism 
of  the  people  that  kept  the  horizon  lurid  with  the  fagot's  flame  for 
a  thousand  years  and  deluged  the  earth  with  human  blood.  I  know 
something  about  mobs  and  lynchings  in  our  own  day,  and  yet  I 
agree  with  that  profound  political  philosopher,  Edmund  Burke,  when 
he  says: 

"  Man  is  a  most  unwise  and  a  most  wise  being.  The 
individual  is  foolish.  The  multitude,  for  the  moment, 
are  foolish,  when  they  act  without  deliberation,  but  the 
species  is  wise,  and  when  time  is  given  to  it,  as  a  species, 
it  almost  always  acts  right." 

I  fully  realize  that  we  have  been  passing  through  a  transition 
period  and  that  the  people  temporarily  have  allowed  the  sensational 
journals  and  the, political  demagogues  to  lead  them  from  the  serene 


26    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

heights  of  sanity  into  the  dismal  swamp  of  hysteria,  where,  with 
their  feet  resting  on  the  ever  yielding  foundations  of  muck  and  en- 
vironed by  fog  and  noise,  the  people  have  reached  a  mental  attitude 
where  they  are  more  easily  attracted  by  the  sophistry  and  cheap 
cure-all  promises  of  the  demagogue  than  by  the  solid  arguments  and 
sound  logic  of  the  statesman.  This  is  the  cause  of  more  than  half 
our  present  ills,  but  in  the  East  can  now  again  be  seen  the  rising  sun 
of  Reason,  whose  rays  have  already  illuminated  the  decision  of  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court. 

Those  who  tell  the  people  that  they  know  all  about  the  science 
of  legislation  and  government,  might  as  well  go  a  step  further  and 
tell  them  that  they  know  all  about  the  science  of  geology,  of  chemistry 
and  of  astronomy;  one  is  as  reasonable  as  the  other. 

A  man  must  serve  an  apprenticeship  to  even  become  a  black- 
smith, but  the  theory  is  broad,  and  seems  to  be  popular,  that  it  re- 
quires no  preparation  to  become  a  maker  of  laws  and  constitutions. 
The  theory  is  seriously  promulgated;  that  the  ignorant  foreign  voter 
who  has  just  been  naturalized  in  order  to  sell  his  vote,  is  as  competent 
to  engage  in  the  science  of  legislation  and  the  administration  of  govern- 
ment, as  the  trained  statesman  with  half  a  century  of  accumulated 
experience,  knowledge  and  wisdom.  What  a  ridiculous  theory!  It 
should  be  advanced  only  for  the  purpose  of  flattering  fools!  /  chal- 
lenge the  correctness  and  sanity  of  this  theory  and  stand  ready  to  debate 
it  with  any  man  on  earth. 

MUST   DEAL    WITH    PEOPLE   AS   THEY    ARE 

I  wish  to  take  this  occasion  to  say  that  with  your  patriotic  desire 
to  improve  the  social  and  political  conditions  of  the  great  mass  of  our 
fellow  citizens,  I  am  in  hearty  sympathy.  But  if  we  are  to  accomplish 
results  we  must  view  the  situation  as  it  is  and  not  as  we  would  like 
to  have  it. 

We  must  deal  with  people,  conditions  and  nature  as  they  are  and 
not  as  we  would  like  to  have  them.  We  must  be  wise  enough  to  use 
the  instrumentalities  at  hand  to  accomplish  practical  and  beneficial 
results  and  make  a  gradual  and  steady  improvement  in  social  and 
political  conditions  along  the  line  toward  our  ideals. 

But  in  order  to  do  this,  we  must  have  a  clear  and  correct  compre- 
hension of  the  fundamental  laws  of  life  and  society  and  we  must  be 
able  to  understand  the  mighty  forces  that  are  carrying  us  onward  to 
improvement  or  decay.    The  real  fact  is  that  the  Giant  of  Civilization 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    27 

is  marching  onward  and  upward  with  a  "fool  killer"  in  each  hand, 
and  the  slaughter  of  the  weak,  the  incompetent,  the  inefficient,  is 
something  frightful  and  indeed  heart  rending. 

But  we  cannot  stay  the  cruel  blows  by  multiplying  abortive  laws 
upon  our  statute  books  or  engaging  in  reckless  criticisms  of  our 
Courts  and  our  system  of  government.  Neither  can  we  improve  con- 
ditions by  fanning  the  flames  of  passion  and  working  the  people  into 
a  state  of  hysteria.  This  only  results  in  making  the  people  discon- 
tented and  still  more  miserable. 

I  agree  with  Prof.  Jordan  when  he  says: 

"The  history  of  human  thought  is  filled  with  the  rise 
of  doctrines,  laws  and  generalizations,  not  drawn  from 
human  experiences  and  not  sanctioned  by  science.  The 
attempt  to  use  these  ideas  as  a  basis  of  human  action, 
has  been  a  fruitful  source  of  Human  Misery." 

The  brilliant  Lecky  truthfully  pictured  modern  conditions  when 

he  said: 

"The  constantly  increasing  tendency,  whenever  any 
abuse  of  any  kind  is  discovered,  is  to  call  upon  Parlia- 
ment to  make  a  law  to  remedy  it.  Every  year  the  net- 
work of  regulation  is  strengthened;  every  year  there  is 
an  increasing  disposition  to  enlarge  and  multiply  the 
functions,  powers  and  responsibilities  of  government. 
I  should  not  be  dealing  sincerely  with  you  if  I  did  not 
express  mj^  opinion  that  this  tendency  carries  with  it 
dangers  even  more  serious  than  those  of  the  opposite 
exaggeration  of  a  past  century;  dangers  to  character  by 
sapping  the  spirit  of  self  reliance  and  independence, 
dangers  to  liberty  by  accustoming  men  to  the  constant 
interference  of  authority  and  abridging  in  innumerable 
ways  the  freedom  of  action  and  choice." 

In  my  opinion  we  should  turn  our  attention  to  teaching  the  peo- 
ple the  lesson  of  self-reliance  and  self-control  We  should  teach 
them  to  educate,  improve  and  reform  themselves.  We  should  teach 
them  to  form  habits  of  industry,  sobriety  and  frugality.  We  should 
teach  them  to  obtain  correct  information  before  acting  and  then  adopt 
reason  as  their  guide,  to  the  end  that  they  may  become  strong  and 
efficient  and  thereby  better  fit  themselves  for  the  struggle  of  existence 
under  our  modern  complex  social  conditions  and  rapidly  changing 
industrial  development.    In  this  direction  lies  the  path  of  True  Reform. 


28    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

WE   ARE    IN    A   VERY    LARGE    WORLD 

Let  me  suggest  to  you,  my  dear  Col.  Roosevelt,  that  we  are  living 
in  a  very  large  world,  which  is  filled  to  overflowing  with  all  kinds  of 
conflicting  theories,  and  it  is  no  easy  task  for  any  man  to  pick  out 
the  true  from  the  false,  the  sound  from  the  unsound. 

Therefore,  we  should  be  charitable  in  our  opinions.  We  should 
cultivate  the  mental  attitude  of  intellectual  hospitality.  We  can, 
however,  always  be  sure  of  one  thing  and  that  is  this:  No  man  has 
a  corner  on  either  wisdom  or  virtue.  There  is  no  monopoly  in  the 
republic  of  ideas — no  trust  in  the  world  of  morals. 

The  storehouses  of  wisdom  and  virtue  are  open  to  all  alike; 
everybody  is  at  liberty  to  partake  to  the  limit  of  their  ability  and 
capacity.  If  a  man  has  not  a  liberal  supply  of  talent,  wisdom  and 
virtue,  he  has  no  one  to  blame  for  it  except  himself,  and  possibly 
nature,  who  fixed  his  mental  and  moral  limitations.  He  certainly  can 
not  lay  the  blame  upon  the  government,  or  upon  the  people's  repre- 
sentatives, as  is  so  often  done. 

Nature  distributes  her  gifts  with  a  secret  and  subtle  hand,  and 
we  can  no  more  change  nature's  distribution  of  talents,  wisdom  and 
virtue  by  law,  than  we  can  change  her  distribution  of  physical  form 
and  beauty. 

We  are  fond  of  saying  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal, 
but  the  fact  is  there  are  only  two  periods  in  life  when  men  are  equal. 
The  first  is  when  they  enter  this  world  through  the  gate  of  Eternity; 
the  second  is  when  they  leave  this  world  through  the  same  gate.  Be- 
tween the  two  Eternities  they  are  all  unequal,  because  nature  has 
made  them  so. 

"There  is  equal  voice  only  among  the  dumb;  equal 
minds  only  among  the  fools;  equal  success  only  among 
the  failures,  and  equal  strength  only  among  the  dead." 

All  that  any  man  can  ask  of  the  government  is  to  give  him  equal 
protection  and  equal  opportunity.  His  success  or  failure  will  then 
depend  upon  himself. 

I  wish  to  again  assure  you  that  I  sincerely  regret  that  I  cannot 
agree  with  you  upon  these  questions  under  consideration.  I  regret 
that  you  have  embraced  doctrines  which  I  cannot  accept,  but  I  would 
not  surrender  my  honest  convictions  upon  these  fundamental  ques- 
tions of  government,  for  all  of  the  offices  within  the  gift  of  the  Ameri- 
can people.    I  do  not  need  the  oflSces,  but  I  do  need  my  self-respect. 


COL.  THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    39 

I  do  not  need  public  applause,  which  at  best  is  as  fleeting  as  the  dew 
drops,  but  I  do  need  an  abiding  consciousness  that  I  have  been  true  to 
myself,  true  to  my  honest  convictions,  and  that  I  have  never  stained 
my  soul  with  the  crime  of  hypocrisy.  In  other  words,  I  would  rather 
be  a  martyr  to  the  cause  of  truth,  than  a  king  on  the  throne  of  Error. 
With  kind  regards,  I  am, 

Sincerely  your  friend, 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 


COLONEL  ROOSEVELT'S  REJOINDER 

287  Fourth  Avenue,  New  York 
Office  of  Theodore  Roosevelt,  July  11,  1911. 
My  dear  Mr.  Betts : 

I  thank  you  for  your  long  and  interesting  letter,  both  for  what  it 
contains  and  the  way  it  is  written.     With  much  that  you  say  I  of 
course  entirely  agree,  although  I  must  also  say  that  I  do  not  withdraw 
the  opinions  I  expressed  in  my  former  letter. 
With  all  good  wishes. 
Sincerely  yours, 

THEODORE  ROOSEVELT. 


REPRESENTATIVE  GOVERNMENT  A 
NECESSITY 

So  long  as  we  have  manhood  suffrage,  so  long  as  we  balance  the 
head  of  the  illiterate  against  the  head  of  the  intelligent  and  educated, 
so  long  as  we  balance  the  head  of  the  fool  against  the  head  of  the 
trained,  experienced  and  enlightened  statesman;  so  long  as  we  balance 
the  empty  head  of  the  boy  of  twenty-one  against  the  head  of  the  po- 
Htical  sage  and  philosopher  with  half  a  century  of  accumulated  wis- 
dom, just  so  long  must  we  have  legislation  and  government  by  repre- 
sentatives— by  representatives  chosen  on  account  of  their  standing, 
experience,  character  and  ability,  as  well  as  their  training,  fitness  and 
skill  for  the  particular  duties  which  they  will  be  called  upon  to  per- 
form. These  representatives  must  be  selected  by  the  masses,  who,  if 
it  were  not  physically  impossible  for  them  to  act  for  themselves,  which 
it  is,  have  neither  the  training,  the  knowledge  or  the  capacity  to  en- 
gage in  the  complicated  and  technical  conduct  of  the  details  of  legis- 
lation and  of  government. 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 
Speech  at  Lyons,  October  9,  1910. 


30    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

AMERICAN  REPRESENTATIVE  DEMOCRACY 

vs. 
A  PURE  OR  DIRECT  DEMOCRACY 

The  quotations  presented  in  this  chapter,  giving  the  thoughts, 
opinions,  arguments  and  conclusions  of  distinguished  poHtical  philoso- 
phers, scholars,  historians,  statesmen  and  students  of  the  science  of 
government,  past  and  present,  will  be  of  interest  to  every  student  of 
poHtical  and  governmental  history  and  will  shed  much  light  upon  the 
two  systems  of  government  known  as  a  representative  democracy, 
and  a  pure  or  direct  democracy. 

It  will  be  observed,  that  not  only  the  enlightened  statesmanship 
of  the  world,  but  the  scholarship  as  well,  are  on  the  side  of  a  repre- 
sentative democracy  as  against  a  pure  democracy.  History,  experi- 
ence, common  sense  and  the  laws  of  nature  are  also  on  the  side  of  a 
representative  democracy  as  against  a  pure  democracy. 

A  pure  democracy  is  analogous  to  life  in  the  most  simple,  un- 
organized protoplasmic  stage. 

A  representative  democracy  is  analogous  to  life  in  the  most 
highly  organized,  perfectly  developed  and  efficient  stage. 

We  invite  the  reader's  attention  to  this  array  of  high  and  dis- 
tinguished authorities. 


THE  FUNDAMENTALS  OF  A  REPUBLIC 

Charles  Pickney,  speaking  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
stitution, said: 

"The  doctrine  of  representation  is  the  fundamental  of  a  repub- 
lic." 

THE  RULE  OF  REASON 

Reason  has  a  natural  empire,  we  resist  it,  but  it  triumphs  over 
our  resistance;  we  persist  in  error  for  a  time,  but  we  always  have  to 
return  to  it. 

MONTESQUIEU. 
Spirit  of  the  Law. 

NOT  A  PURE  DEMOCRACY 

This  country  is  a  representative  country  and  not  a  pure  democracy. 
The  latter  would  be  unworkable  in  a  country  of  this  magnitude. 
Except  with  regard  to  fundamental  questions,  or  matters  compar- 
atively simple,  it  is  impractical  for  the  electorate  to  directly  express 
its  views. 

FORMER  GOV.  CHARLES  E.  HUGHES. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    31 

NOT  SO  BAD  AS  A  NATION 

As  a  Nation  we  are  not  as  bad  as  we  declare  ourselves  to  be. 
Individual  reputations  are  being  talked  up  by  talking  down  others. 
Men  seem  possessed  to  establish  their  own  individual  virtue  as  if  they 
had  been  charged  with  its  absence. 


Common  Sense  in  Politics,  p.  2^0. 


JOB  E.  HEDGES. 


THE  ONLY  GOOD  GOVERNMENT 

In  a  large  society  inhabiting  an  extensive  country,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  the  whole  world  should  assemble  to  make  laws.  The  first 
necessary  step,  then,  is  to  depute  power  from  the  many  to  a  few  of 
the  most  wise  and  good.  There  is  no  good  government  but  what  is 
Republican. 

Thoughts  on  Government. 


JOHN  ADAMS. 


THE  LAW 

The  law,  therefore,  to  a  certain  extent,  should  correct  national 
tendencies.  It  should  be  loved  a  little  because  it  is  felt  to  be  just, 
feared  a  little  because  it  is  severe,  hated  a  little  because  it  is  to  a  cer- 
tain degree  out  of  sympathy  with  the  prevalent  temper  of  the  day, 
and  respected  because  it  is  felt  to  be  necessary. 

EMILE  FAGUET. 
The  Cult  of  Incompetence,  p.  69. 


AMERICAN  DEMOCRACY  vs.  MOBOCRACY 

The  clamor  now  is  heard  that  the  organization  of  American 
Democracy,  such  as  the  Republic  has  known  for  a  century  and  a 
quarter,  must  be  altered,  torn  asunder,  under  the  pretense  that  the 
people  do  not  govern  with  sufficient  directness.  Let  us  hope  that  the 
clamor  is  but  a  passing  ebullition  of  feeling. 

Democracy,  Yes!  Mobocracy  never.  And  toward  mobocracy 
we  are  now  bidden  to  wend  our  way.  The  shibboleths  of  the  clamor, 
the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the  Recall,  put  into  general  prac- 
tice, as  the  evangelists  of  the  new  social  gospel  would  fain  have  them, 
are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  madness  of  Democracy. 

ARCHBISHOP  IRELAND. 
Speech  Council  Bluffs, 
Iowa,  Oct.  11,  1911 


32    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

EXTENT  OF  COUNTRY 

Extent  of  country,  in  my  conception,  ought  to  be  no  bar  to  the 
adoption  of  a  good  government.  No  extent  on  earth  seems  to  me  too 
great,  provided  the  laws  be  wisely  made  and  executed.  The  principles 
of  representation  and  responsibility,  may  pervade  a  large,  as  well  as 
a  small  territory. 

EDMUND  RANDOLPH. 
Speech  in  Virginia  Convention,  June  6,  1788. 


CONSTITUTIONAL  LIMITATIONS 

To  what  purpose  are  limitations  committed  to  writing,  if  those 
limits  may  at  any  time  be  passed  by  those  intended  to  be  restrained? 
The  distinction  between  a  government  with  limited  and  unlimited 
powers  is  abolished  if  those  limits  do  not  confine  the  persons  on  whom 
they  are  imposed. 

JOHN  MARSHALL. 
From  Opinion  in  Marhury  vs.  Madison, 
1  Cranch,  137. 


THE  PERFECT  RULER 

To  discover  the  perfect  ruler  for  human  society  we  must  find  a 
superior  intelligence  who  has  seen  all  the  passions  of  man  but  has  ex- 
perienced none  of  them,  who  has  had  no  sort  of  relations  with  our 
nature  but  who  knows  it  to  the  core,  whose  happiness  is  not  dependent 
on  us,  but  who  wishes  to  promote  our  welfare,  in  a  word,  one  who 
aims  at  a  distant  renown,  in  a  remote  future,  and  who  is  content  to 
labor  in  one  age  and  to  enjoy  in  another. 

ROUSSEAU. 
Social  Contract. 


NOT  KNOWN   TO   THE  ANCIENTS 

One  thing  is  very  certain,  that  the  doctrine  of  representation  in 
government  was  not  known  to  the  Ancients.  Now  the  knowledge  and 
practice  of  its  doctrine  is,  in  my  opinion,  essential  to  every  system,  that 
can  possess  the  qualities  of  freedom,  wisdom  and  energy. 

To  control  the  power  and  conduct  of  the  legislatures  by  an  over- 
ruling constitution,  was  an  improvement  in  the  science  and  practice  of 
government  reserved  to  the  American  states. 

JAMES  WILSON. 
Speech  in  Pennsylvania  Convention,  Nov.  26,  1787. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    33 

NO  EQUALITY  IN  MINDS 

Whatever  efforts  a  people  may  make,  they  will  never  succeed  in 
reducing  all  the  conditions  of  society  to  a  perfect  level;  and  even  if 
they  unhappily  attain  that  absolute  and  complete  depression,  the 
inequality  of  minds  would  still  remain,  which  coming  directly  from 
the  hand  of  God,  will  forever  escape  the  laws  of  man. 

DE  TOCQUEVILLE. 
Democracy  in  America,  p.  146. 

FATHERS  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 

It  becomes  us,  Sir,  in  my  humble  opinion,  to  approach  this  sub- 
ject with  the  profoundest  reverence  for  this  Constitution,  as  the  work 
of  that  illustrious  body  of  patriots  and  statesmen,  who  seem  to  have 
been  raised  up  by  Providence,  at  that  peculiarly  eventful  period,  to 
guide  by  their  eminent  wisdom  and  exalted  public  virtue,  the  coun- 
cils of  that  convention,  the  result  of  whose  deliberations  was  to  fix 
the  future  destinies  of  this  great  empire  of  freedom.  They  were  men 
originally  highly  gifted  by  nature  and  deeply  versed  in  political  know- 
ledge; they  had  been  educated  in  the  principles  of  civil  liberty,  and 
well  understood  the  temper  and  genius  of  their  country,  its  interests, 
and  the  spirit  of  its  institutions.  For  sound  views  of  the  theory  of 
government,  just  application  of  political  principles  and  as  the  purest 
models  of  eloquence,  the  public  papers  of  the  statesmen  of  our  revolu- 
tion have  never  been  excelled  and  will  long  remain  unrivalled. 

HENRY  R.  STORRS. 
Speech  in  House  of  Representatives,  Feb.  17,  1826. 


SELF-CONTROLLED  REPRESENTATIVE 
DEMOCRACY 

The  Repubhcan  Party  of  New  York,  in  State  Convention  as- 
sembled, hereby  declares  its  faith  in  those  fundamental  principles  of 
government  established  in  the  United  States  by  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution. 

We  beheve  that  this  is  a  self-controlled  representative  democracy, 
as  illustrated  by  the  entire  course  of  our  national  experience. 

We  believe  that  order  is  the  prerequisite  of  progress,  and  that  this 
national  tradition  must  not  be  destroyed  nor  principle  be  sacrificed 
to  opportunism. 

We  believe  that  the  guarantees  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  incor- 
porated in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  for  the  protection  of 
each  citizen,  even  if  threatened  by  a  temporary  majority,  shall  be 
forever  preserved. 

NEW  YORK  STATE  REPUBLICAN  PLATFORM. 
Adopted  at  Rochester,  April  10,  1912. 


34    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

A  BREEDER  OF  CORRUPTION 

In  small  places,  where  every  body  knows  each  other,  direct 
nomination  is  not  attended  with  any  difficulties;  but  in  the  large 
cities  the  electors  are  so  numerous  that  they  do  not  know  the  good 
candidates  any  more  than  the  bad  ones, — the  latter  are  even  better 
known.  This  system,  therefore,  has  in  no  way,  curtailed  the  power 
of  the  wire  pullers,  nor  encouraged  candidates  of  a  superior  stamp  to 
court  the  suffrages  of  the  primaries.  Fraud  and  corruption  flourish 
in  the  direct  primaries  as  elsewhere.  Corruption  is  even  more  rife  in 
them. 

OSTROGORSKI. 
Works,  Vol.  11,  p.  532. 


A  FUNDAMENTAL  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE 

Another  fundamental  among  political  principles  which  experience 
has  confirmed  is  representative  government.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
an  enthusiastic  and  able  propoganda  against  representative  govern- 
ment by  appealing  to  the  sentiment  called  the  people's  will  has  made 
great  progress.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  has  discredited  state  legis- 
latures and  Congress.  It  has  led  in  many  states  to  the  initiative,  the 
referendum  and  the  recall.  It  claims,  in  its  extreme  phase,  that 
government  can  only  be  popular  when  the  actual  meeting  of  the  mob 
takes  the  place  of  the  deliberations  of  the  legislative  body  and  deci- 
sions of  the  courts. 

The  man  who  acts  as  his  own  lawyer  loses  his  property;  as  his 
own  doctor,  loses  his  life;  as  his  own  architect,  lives  in  an  unsanitary 
building;  as  his  own  engineer,  drives  over  a  bridge  which  falls  into  a 
stream.  As  life  grows  more  intense  in  its  demands  upon  people  in 
every  department  of  work,  they  must  concentrate  their  minds  on 
their  industry  if  they  would  succeed  in  their  chosen  pursuit.  The 
people  know  that  with  these  conditions,  and  with  the  greatest  intel- 
ligence among  the  masses,  to  provide  measures  of  government  and 
principles  of  justice  is  absolutely  impossible. 

They  can  select  men,  their  neighbors,  those  who  are  willing  to 
serve  and  who  are  able  to  do  this  work  for  them,  and  then  judge  of 
the  capability  and  the  intelligence  of  their  representatives,  as  they  do 
of  the  work  of  their  engineer  and  their  lawyer  and  their  doctor,  by 
results.  It  is  to  the  credit  of  our  institutions  that  while  every  other 
country  has  changed  in  its  fundamentals,  we  live  after  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  years  under  the  same  constitution,  practically  un- 
changed and  with  a  liberty  and  prosperity  and  promise  for  the  future 
which  are  magnificent  testimonies  to  the  wisdom  of  the  fathers. 

SENATOR  CHAUNCEY  M.  DEPEW. 
Speech  at  Republican  Club,  New  York, 
April  7,  1911. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIBITED  DISCUSSION    35 

ADVANCED  FORM  OF  STATE  EVOLUTION 

Thus  modern  democratic  national  states  represent  the  most 
advanced  form  of  state  Evolution.  With  ethnic  and  geographic 
unity  they  have  a  strong  national  basis;  and,  by  combining  local 
self-government  and  representation,  they  secure  that  adjustment 
of  liberty  and  sovereignty  which,  even  over  large  areas,  may  subserve 
the  interests  of  both  individual  and  society. 

PROF.  RAYMOND  G.  GETTELL, 
Trinity  College. 
Political  Science,  p.  64. 


MODERN  AND  ANCIENT  GOVERNMENT 

Representative  government  is  comparatively  modern.  Direct 
government  of  the  democratic  kind  is  ancient:  and  the  latter  was  de- 
liberately discarded  for  the  former  by  the  founders  of  our  government. 
The  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  entirely  familiar  with  the  failure 
of  direct  democracy  in  a  government  of  numerous  population,  and  they 
were  influenced  by  their  knowledge  of  that  failure  in  devising  our  own 
structure  of  representative  government. 

HON.  SAMUEL  W.  McCALL. 
Speech  at  Cedar  Point,  Ohio,  July  12,  1911. 


HAMILTON  AND  JEFFERSON  AGREED 

But  when,  scorning  the  arts  of  the  demagogue,  we  look  the  facts 
squarely  in  the  face,  we  must  recognize  frankly  that  in  government 
there  are  certain  functions  which  the  people  can  not  perform  directly 
and  which,  therefore,  in  a  popular  government  must  be  performed 
by  representatives  or  delegates  chosen  by  the  people.  And  it  is  a 
fact  that  what  the  people  do  through  their  representatives  or  dele- 
gates, the  people  themselves  do.  If  we  can  not  have  democratic 
government  except  on  condition  that  all  functions  of  government 
shall  be  exercised  by  the  people  themselves,  democratic  government 
becomes  an  impossibility.  This  was  clearly  recognized  by  the  founders 
of  the  Republic.  Indeed,  the  greatest  achievement  of  the  Consti- 
tutional Convention  was  the  formulation  of  a  plan  of  representative 
government  in  contrast  with  the  system  of  direct  popular  government 
which  was  practiced  in  the  republics  of  the  ancient  world.  And 
Hamilton  and  Jefferson  alike  agreed  that  this  devise  of  government 
by  the  people  acting,  not  in  person,  but  through  their  representatives, 
was  the  principal  safe-guard  of  the  rights  of  citizens  and  the  firmest 
guarantee  of  the  continuance  of  the  Republic. 

JACOB  GOULD  SCHURMAN. 
Speech  at  Utica,  Feb.  6,  1909. 


36    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

THE  LEADING  RAMS 

Speaking  of  the  impossibility  of  the  socialistic  democracy,  Dr. 
A.  Schaffle,  the  distinguished  German  author  says: 

"The  leading  rams  of  the  modern  democratic  flock  whom  all 
the  sheep  follow  would  be  the  sole  actual  legislators,  rulers  and  ad- 
ministrators, and  would  in  all  probability  not  be  of  the  best  and  most 
capable,  but  the  most  thorough-going  demagogues,  the  most  success- 
ful flatterers  of  the  many-headed  monarch." 
Social  Democracy,  p.  123. 

GOVERNMENT  BY  TUMULT 

The  civic  assemblies  grew  larger,  louder  and  less  orderly;  the 
business  was  carried  on  after  a  more  passionate  and  tumultuous 
fashion,  because  the  guidance  of  a  superior  spirit  was  absent,  and 
because  the  entire  multitude  accordingly  took  a  more  direct  part  in 
the  proceedings,  and  unhesitatingly  displayed  its  momentary  feelings 
— its  favor  and  disfavor,  its  satisfaction  and  impatience. 

CURTIES. 
History  of  Greece,  Vol.  3,  p.  92. 

GOVERNMENT  BY  REPRESENTATIVES 

For  let  it  be  agreed  that  a  government  is  Republican  in  proportion 
as  every  member  composing  it  has  equal  voice  in  the  direction  of  its 
concerns,  (not  indeed  in  person,  which  would  be  impracticable  beyond 
the  limits  of  a  city  or  a  small  township),  but  by  representatives  chosen 
by  himself  and  responsible  to  him  at  short  periods,  and  let  us  bring 
to  the  test  of  this  canon  every  branch  of  our  constitution. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON. 
Works,  Vol.  15,  p.  33. 

THE  EVILS  OF  POPULAR  ELECTIONS 

So  was  Rome  destroyed  by  the  disorders  of  continual  elections, 
though  those  of  Rome  were  sober  disorders.  They  had  nothing  but 
faction,  bribery,  bread  and  stage  plays  to  debauch  them.  We  have 
the  inflammation  of  liquor  superseded,  a  fury  hotter  than  any  of  them. 
There  the  contest  was  only  between  citizen  and  citizen,  yet  Rome 
was  destroyed  by  the  frequency  of  elections,  and  the  monstrous  ex- 
pense of  an  unremitted  courtship  to  the  people. 

EDMUND  BURKE. 
Thoughts  on  Discontent. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    37 

THE  UNITED  STATES  SYSTEM 

The  system  of  government  in  the  United  States  and  in  the  several 
states  is  distinguished  from  a  pure  democracy  in  this  respect,  that  the 
will  of  the  people  is  made  manifest  through  representatives  chosen  by 
them  to  administer  their  affairs  and  make  their  laws,  and  who  are  en- 
trusted ^vith  defined  and  limited  powers  in  that  regard,  whereas,  the 
idea  of  a  democracy,  non-representative  in  character,  implies  that 
the  laws  are  made  by  the  entire  people  acting  in  a  mass-meeting  or  at 
least  by  universal  and  direct  vote.  Representation  is  one  of  the  very 
essentials  of  a  Republican  form  of  government. 

BLACK'S  CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW. 
Page  28. 


A  REPUBLICAN  FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT 

By  the  Constitution,  a  republican  form  of  government  is  guar- 
anteed to  every  State  in  the  union,  and  the  distinguishing  feature  of 
that  form  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  choose  their  own  officers  for 
governmental  administration  and  pass  their  own  laws  in  virtue  of  the 
legislative  power  reposed  in  representative  bodies,  whose  legitimate 
acts  may  be  said  to  be  those  of  the  people  themselves,  but,  while  the 
people  are  thus  the  source  of  political  power,  their  governments, 
National  and  State,  have  been  limited  by  written  constitutions,  and 
they  have  thus  thereby  set  bounds  to  their  own  power,  as  against  the 
sudden  impulses  of  mere  majorities. 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  FULLER. 
\J .  S.  Supreme  Court, 
Duncan,  139  U.  S.,  U9. 


ORIGIN  OF  REPRESENTATIVE   GOVERN- 
MENT 

I  begin  with  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the  Representative 
System.  This  is  an  invention  of  modern  times.  In  antiquity  there 
were  Republics  and  Democracies,  but  there  was  no  Representative 
System.  In  Athens  the  people  met  in  public  Assembly,  and  directly 
acted  for  themselves  on  all  questions,  foreign  and  domestic.  This  was 
possible  there,  as  the  state  was  small  and  the  Assembly  seldom  ex- 
ceeded 5,000  citizens— a  large  town-meeting  or  mass-meeting  as  we 
might  call  it — not  inaptly  termed,  "that  fierce  democratic  of  Athens." 

The  American  System,  though  first  showing  itself  in  Massachu- 
setts and  Virginia,  found  its  earliest  practical  exemplification  a  few 
years  later,  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

CHARLES  SUMNER. 
Works,  Vol.  3,  p.  232-241 


434405 


38    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

TRUE  AND  FALSE  DEMOCRACY 

Jealousy  of  power  honestly  gained  and  justly  exercised,  envy  of 
attainment  or  possession,  are  characteristics  of  the  mob,  not  of  the 
people;  of  a  democracy  which  is  false,  not  of  a  democracy  which  is 
true.  False  democracy  shouts.  Every  man  down  to  the  level  of  the 
average.  True  democracy  cries.  All  men  up  to  the  height  of  their 
fullest  capacity  for  service  and  achievement.  The  two  ideals  are 
everlastingly  at  war.  The  future  of  this  nation  as  the  future  of  the 
world,  is  bound  up  with  the  hope  of  a  true  democracy  that  builds 
itself  on  Liberty. 

NICHOLAS  MURRAY  BUTLER. 

True  and  False  Democracy,  p.  15. 


REPRESENTATION  OUR  INVENTION 

They,  (the  Ancients)  knew  no  medium  between  a  Democracy, 
(the  only  pure  Republic,  but  impracticable  beyond  the  limits  of  a 
town)  and  an  abandonment  of  themselves  to  an  aristocracy  or  a 
tyranny  independent  of  the  people.  It  seems  not  to  have  occurred 
that  where  the  citizens  cannot  meet  to  transact  their  business  in  person, 
they  alone  have  the  right  to  choose  the  agents  who  shall  transact  it, 
and  that  in  this  way  a  repubhcan  government  of  a  second  grade  of 
purity  may  be  exercised  over  any  extent  of  country. 

The  full  experiment  of  a  government  democratical,  but  repre- 
sentative, was  and  still  is  reserved  for  us. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON. 
Works,  Vol.  16,  p.  65. 

GOVERNMENT  BY  SHOUTS 

The  manner  of  their  election  was  as  follows:  The  people  being 
called  together,  some  selected  persons,  were  locked  up  in  a  room  near 
the  place  of  election,  so  contrived  that  they  could  neither  see  or  be 
seen,  but  could  only  hear  the  noise  of  the  assembly  without,  for  they 
decided  this,  as  most  other  affairs  of  moment,  by  the  shouts  of  the 
people.  This  done,  the  competitors  were  not  brought  in  and  presented 
altogether  but  one  after  another  by  lot,  and  passed  in  order  through 
the  assembly  without  speaking  a  word.  Those  who  were  locked  up 
had  writing  tablets  with  them  in  which  they  recorded  and  marked 
each  shout  by  its  loudness,  without  knowing  in  favor  of  which  candi- 
date each  of  them  was  made,  but  merely  that  they  came  first,  second, 
third,  and  so  forth.  He  who  was  found  to  have  the  most  and  loudest 
acclamations  was  declared  senator  duly  elected. 

PLUTARCH. 
Lives,  p.  92. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSIOX    39 

IT  IS  THE  MODERN  METHOD 

Representation  is  the  modern  method  by  which  the  will  of  a  great 
multitude  may  express  itself  through  an  elected  body  of  men  for 
deliberation  in  law  making.  It  is  the  only  practicable  way  by  which  a 
large  country  can  give  expression  to  its  will  in  deliberate  legislation. 
Give  the  suffrage  to  the  people,  let  lawmaking  be  in  the  hands  of  their 
representatives,  and  make  the  representatives  responsible  at  short 
periods  to  the  popular  judgment,  and  the  rights  of  men  will  be  safe, 
for  they  will  select  only  such  as  will  protect  their  rights  and  dismiss 
those  who,  upon  trial,  will  not.  True  representation  is  a  security 
against  wrong  and  abuse  in  lawmaking. 

JOHN  RANDOLPH  TUCKER. 


PURE  vs.  REPRESENTATIVE  DEMOCRACY 

Democracies  are  of  two  kinds. — pure,  or  direct,  and  represen- 
tative, or  indirect.  A  pure  democracy  is  one  in  which  the  will  of  the 
state  is  formulated  and  expressed  directly  and  immediately  through 
the  people  acting  in  their  primary  capacity.  A  pure  democracy  is 
practical  only  in  small  states,  where  the  voting  population  may  be 
assembled  for  purposes  of  legislation  and  where  the  collective  needs  of 
the  people  are  few  and  simple.  In  large  and  complex  societies,  where 
the  legislative  wants  of  the  people  are  numerous,  the  very  necessities 
of  the  situation  make  government  by  the  whole  body  of  citizens  a 
physical  impossibility. 

PROF.  GARNER. 
Introduction  to  Political  Science. 


GOVERNMENT  BY  SELECTED  INTELLI- 
GENCE 

A  simple  or  pure  democracy  mixes  ignorance  and  intelligence, 
folly  and  wisdom,  vice  and  virtue,  inexperience  and  experience,  dema- 
gog}^ and  statesmanship  altogether  in  hopeless  confusion  and  the  bad 
neutralizes  the  good  and  pulls  both  the  intellectual  and  moral  standard 
down  to  the  dead  level  of  mediocrity,  but  when  we  engraft  upon  a  pure 
democracy  the  representative  system,  we  then  enable  the  people  to 
pick  out  men  of  character,  experience,  wisdom  and  statesmanship, 
wherever  they  can  be  found,  and  assemble  them  in  a  representative 
body — in  a  legislature  or  a  convention,  where  they  can  act  for  the 
public  good. 

A  pure  democracy,  when  reduced  to  the  last  analysis,  means 
government  by  collective  ignorance,  while  a  representative  democracy 
means  government  by  selected  intelligence. 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 


40    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEKS— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

WHERE  LIBERTY  IS  FOUND 

Real  liberty  is  never  found  in  despotism  or  the  extremes  of 
Democracy,  but  in  moderate  governments.  As  long  as  offices  are  open 
to  all  men,  and  no  constitutional  rank  is  established,  it  is  pure  Repub- 
licanism. But  if  we  incline  too  much  to  Democracy,  we  shall  soon 
shoot  into  a  monarchy. 

The  idea  of  introducing  a  monarchy  or  an  aristocracy  into  this 
country  by  employing  the  influence  and  force  of  the  government,  con- 
tinually changing  hands,  towards  it,  is  one  of  those  visionary  things 
that  none  but  madmen  could  meditate.  *****  ^^le  fabric 
of  the  American  Empire  ought  to  rest  on  the  solid  basis  of  the  consent 
of  the  People;  and  the  streams  of  national  power  ought  to  flow  im- 
mediately from  that  pure  and  original  fountain  of  all  legitimate  au- 
thority. 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON. 
Works,  Vol  l,p.  4il 


POLITICAL  RELIGION  OF  THE  NATION 

I  know  the  American  people  are  much  attached  to  their  govern- 
ment. I  know  they  would  suffer  much  for  its  sake.  I  know  they  would 
endure  evils  long  and  patiently  before  they  would  ever  think  of  ex- 
changing it  for  another.  Yet,  notwithstanding  all  this,  if  the  laws  be 
continually  despised  and  disregarded,  if  their  rights  to  be  secure  in 
their  persons  and  property  are  held  by  no  better  tenure  than  the  ca- 
price of  a  mob,  the  alienation  of  their  affections  for  the  government  is 
the  natural  consequence,  and  to  that  sooner  or  later  it  must  come. 

Here,  then,  is  one  point  at  which  danger  may  be  expected.  The 
question  recurs,  how  shall  we  fortify  against  it?  The  answer  is  sim- 
ple. Let  every  American,  every  lover  of  liberty,  every  well-wisher  to 
his  posterity,  swear  by  the  blood  of  the  revolution  never  to  violate  in 
the  least  particular  the  laws  of  the  country,  and  never  to  tolerate  their 
violation  by  others.  As  the  patriots  of  seventy-six  did  to  the  support 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  so  to  the  support  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  the  Laws  let  every  American  pledge  his  life,  his  property,  and 
his  sacred  honor;  let  every  man  remember  that  to  violate  the  law  is 
to  trample  on  the  blood  of  his  father,  and  to  tear  the  charter  of  his  own 
and  his  children's  liberty.  Let  reverence  for  the  laws  be  breathed  by 
every  American  mother  to  the  lisping  babe  that  prattles  on  her  lap. 
Let  it  be  taught  in  schools,  in  seminaries,  and  in  colleges.  Let  it  be 
written  in  primers,  spelling-books,  and  in  almanacs.  Let  it  be 
preached  from  the  pulpit,  proclaimed  in  legislative  halls,  and  enforced 
in  courts  of  justice.  And,  in  short,  let  it  become  the  poHtical  religion 
of  the  nation. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 
Speech  at  Springfield,  1832. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    41 

ORDERLY  PROGRESS 

In  my  judgement  the  type  of  democracy  should  be  peace,  moder- 
ation, enfranchisement  and  beneficence.  As  to  the  radicalism  which 
is  imputed  to  me,  I  have  only  to  say  now,  as  I  have  often  said  to  you 
heretofore,  that  the  tendencies  of  American  institutions  to  the  amelior- 
ation of  laws  and  the  improvement  of  society,  have  been  my  study;  I 
aim  to  allow  them  free  operation.  I  am  in  favor  only  of  progress  by 
advancement,  peaceful  and  lawful,  not  by  subverting  in  order  to  build 
anew. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 
Works,  Vol.  3,  p.  U5. 


BACK  TO  THE  CHAOS  OF  SAVAGERY 

Society  is  stable  when  the  wants  of  its  members  obtain  as  much 
satisfaction  as,  life  being  what  it  is,  common  sense  and  experience 
show  may  be  reasonably  expected.  Mankind,  in  general,  care  very 
little  for  forms  of  government  or  ideal  considerations  of  any  sort; 
and  nothing  really  stirs  the  great  multitude  to  break  with  custom 
and  incur  the  manifest  perils  of  revolt  except  the  belief  that  misery 
in  this  world  or  damnation  in  the  next,  or  both,  are  threatened  by  the 
continuance  of  the  state  of  things  in  which  they  have  been  brought 
up.  But  when  they  do  attain  that  conviction,  society  becomes  as 
unstable  as  a  package  of  dynamite,  and  a  very  small  matter  will 
produce  the  explosion  which  sends  it  back  to  the  chaos  of  savagery. 

THOMAS  H.  HUXLEY. 
Social  Diseases  and  Worse  Remedies. 


FOR  THE  IDLE  AND  THE  COMMON 

This  is  a  direct  popular  government  of  the  people,  with  all  that 
it  carries  in  its  train, — a  multitude  of  projects  started  at  public 
meetings,  many  assemblages  and  manifestations  in  the  street.  In 
all  of  this  there  is  nothing  which  could  be  less  attractive  and  more 
impracticable  for  the  cultivated  and  busy  classes.  In  our  modern 
civilization,  the  daily  occupation,  the  family  and  society  absorb 
almost  all  our  time.  For  this  reason  such  a  regime  of  Direct  admini- 
stration suits  only  the  idle  and  common.  The  others  will  not  try  to 
make  themselves  fit  conditions  suitable  only  for  the  coarse  man  of 
no  family  and  without  affiliations  having  no  occupation  or  standing, 
living  in  an  unsettled  fashion,  of  a  vociferous  tendenc}^,  strong  of  arm, 
thick-skinned  and  unbending,  expert  in  the  street  scuffle  and  for 
whom  force  constitutes  the  greatest  argument. 

TAINE. 
La  Revolution,  Vol.  6,  p.  161. 


42    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 
MATTER  OF  ANTIQUARIAN  CURIOSITY 

For  the  sake  of  making  clear  what  follows,  I  will  venture  to  re- 
capitulate what  was  said  in  an  earlier  chapter  as  to  the  three  forms 
which  government  has  taken  in  free  countries. 

First  come  primary  assemblies,  such  as  those  of  the  Greek  Re- 
publics of  antiquity,  or  those  of  the  early  Teutonic  tribes,  which  have 
survived  in  a  few  Swiss  Cantons. 

The  people  met,  debated  current  questions,  decided  them  by  its 
vote,  chose  those  who  were  to  carry  out  its  will. 

Such  a  system  of  direct  popular  government  is  possible  only  in 
small  communities,  and  in  this  day  of  large  states  has  become  a  matter 
rather  of  antiquarian  curiosity  than  of  practical  moment 

JAMES  BRYCE. 
American  Commonwealth,  Vol.  2,  pp.  278-80. 

POLITICAL  PATENT  MEDICINE  MEN 

Conditions  in  the  United  States  to-day  are  singularly  like  those 
which  have  attracted  the  favorable  attention  of  a  certain  class  of 
persons  who  are  forced  to  make  a  living  by  their  wits.  The  vendor  of  a 
patent  medicine  assures  his  hearers  that  they  have  at  the  moment  some 
distressing  symptoms,  namely  symptoms  which  every  one  has  at  one 
time  or  another.  His  hearers,  assenting,  easily  accept  the  inference 
that  they  are  seriously  diseased  and  in  need  of  instant  relief.  That 
relief  can  only  be  had  from  the  contents  of  the  bottle  or  package 
which  they  may  purchase  of  him  at  a  satisfactory  price.  Just  this 
performance  is  being  enacted  to-day  all  over  the  tFnited  States  by 
itinerant  political  patent  medicine  men.  They  tell  all  those  who  will 
listen  that  we  are  politically  diseased  and  that  our  political  life  is  in 
danger;  our  symptoms  are  those  dreadful  manifestations  which,  to 
some  extent  and  in  some  degree,  every  human  being  and  every  form 
of  society  feel  now  and  then.  But  the  cure,  the  certain,  sure  speedy 
cure,  is  to  purchase  the  bottle  or  the  package  which  contains  the  po- 
litical patent  medicine  that  the  particular  pohtical  patent  medicine 
man  has  for  sale.  His  plausible  story  wins  enough  support  to  gain  him 
a  livehhood  and  to  keep  his  name  in  active  prominence  before  the  pub- 
lic. 

We  are  to-day  infested  with  these  political  patent  medicine  men. 
Ignorant  of  ordinary  laws  of  political  and  social  growth,  or  defying 
them,  they  press  upon  us  the  odd  and  curious  nostrums  of  their  own 
making  which  are  to  cure  all  our  evils,  to  abolish  poverty,  to  do  away 
with  injustice,  and  to  bring  about  that  happy  and  bhssful  Utopia  of 
which  certain  types  of  men  with  nothing  useful  to  do  habitually 
dream. 

NICHOLAS  MURRAY  BUTLER. 
Speech  at  Rochester  Republican 
Convention,  April  10,  1912. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION"    43 

PROTECTS  THE  RIGHTS  OF  MINORITIES 

The  defense  is  properly  set  up  for  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment with  a  division  of  powers,  that  it  protects  the  right  of  minorities. 
The  majority  of  the  people  may  not  directly  attack  the  interests  of 
the  minority.  Yet  in  the  use  of  the  initiative,  the  referendum  and 
the  recall,  what  is  seen?  The  minority  often  absolutely  controls  the 
majority.    Indeed  it  seems  to  be  assumed  that  this  is  their  right. 

Men  like  Washington,  Lincoln,  Daniel  Webster,  Henry  Clay  and 
John  C.  Calhoun  were  not  the  products  of  any  political  system  in 
which  bodies  of  mediocre  men  with  hobbies  robbed  the  legislature  of 
its  dignity  and  authority  and  subjected  executive,  legislative  and 
judicial  officers  to  the  fear  of  recall  when  they  pursued  a  course  dis- 
tasteful to  some  faction  of  the  electorate.  Only  timid,  shambling, 
inefifective  men  can  come  out  of  a  system  which  strips  public  office  of 
character  and  authority  and  makes  it  directly  subservient  to  popular 
whims. 

PROFESSOR  OBERHOLTZER. 
Referendum  in  America. 

THOSE  WHO  SEE  FACTS  AND  THOSE  WHO 

SEE  VISIONS 

Those  who  are  so  intemperately  appealing  to  the  people  to  take 
over  the  direct  management  of  their  government,  with  its  multiplicity 
of  detail  and  difficulty,  the  successful  operation  of  which  demands 
concentration  of  effort  and  thoroughness  of  application,  are  preparing 
the  way  for  future  mischief.  They  are  advocating  a  political  creed 
alluring  to  the  imagination,  but  utterly  impossible  of  successful  realiz- 
ation, and  which,  if  adopted,  will  lead  us  more  and  more  into  the  do- 
main of  the  impracticable,  with  political  chaos  or  political  despotism 
as  the  ultimate  result.  It  is  the  old  contest  between  idealism  and 
stubborn,  matter-of-fact  reality.  It  is  the  story  of  the  philosopher's 
stone  over  again — the  dream  of  transmuting  all  the  metals  into  gold — 
the  hunt  for  the  master  key  that  will  open  all  locks,  however  different 
in  size  and  shape— the  problem  of  fitting  square  pegs  into  round  holes 
— the  puzzle  of  how  to  eat  one's  cake  and  have  it — the  search  for  the 
chimera  of  perpetual  motion — the  quest  for  the  mythical  pot  of  gold 
at  the  foot  of  the  rainbow — and  all  the  impossible  undertakings  which 
have  vexed  men's  souls  and  turned  their  brains  and  filled  the  lunatic 
asylums  since  mankind  was  divided  into  those  who  see  facts  and  those 
who  see  visions.  Finally,  this  latest  delusion  of  having  everybody 
drive  the  horses  and  everybody  ride  in  the  coach  at  the  same  time  must 
share  the  fate  of  all  the  others,  for  it  is  now,  as  it  has  always  been, 
that  the  pursuit  of  the  unattainable  is  the  most  profitless  of  human 
occupations. 

SENATOR  GEORGE  SUTHERLAND. 

Speech,  House  of  Representatives,  July  11,  1911. 


44    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

THE  RAW  DEMAGOGUE 

Many  excellent  persons  believe  apparently  that  beneficient  re- 
sults can  be  obtained  by  certain  proposed  alterations  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, often,  I  venture  to  think,  without  examination  of  the  history 
and  theory  of  government  and  without  measuring  the  extent  or 
weighing  the  meaning  of  the  changes  which  are  urged  upon  us.  But 
it  is  also  true  that  every  one  who  is  in  distress,  or  in  debt,  or  discon- 
tented, now  assails  the  Constitution,  merely  because  such  is  the  present 
passion. 

Every  raw  demagogue,  every  noisy  agitator,  incapable  of  con- 
nected thought  and  seeking  his  own  advancement  by  the  easy  method 
of  appealing  to  the  envy,  mahce,  and  all-uncharitableness — those 
lovely  qualities  in  human  nature  which  so  readily  seek  for  gratifica- 
tion under  the  mask  of  high  sounding  and  noble  attributes — all  such 
people  now  lift  their  heads  to  tear  down  or  remake  the  Constitution. 

HENRY  CABOT  LODGE. 
Speech  at  Raleigh,  N.  C,  Nov.  28,  1911. 


RESPONSIBILITY  MUST  BE  LOCATED 

Members  of  the  Legislature  of  the  different  states  are  the  agents 
and  direct  representatives  of  the  people,  and  if  it  be  true  that  as  a 
whole  they  are  incompetent,  unworthy  and  corrupt  it  would  follow 
necessarily  that  the  masses  of  the  people  from  whom  they  spring  and 
from  whom  they  are  selected  were  also  either  corrupt  or  criminally 
indifferent  to  their  interests  or  liberties.  They  possess  the  same  char- 
acteristics as  the  people  from  whom  they  have  come,  and  if,  after 
repeated  trials  and  selections,  the  community  can  not  secure  an  in- 
telligent and  honest  man  to  represent  it,  /  should  not  like  to  live  under 
the  laws  initiated  or  adopted  by  the  sovereignty  of  that  people. 

It  is  a  sound  governmental  principle  that  political  power  should 
always  be  accompanied  with  responsibility  located  and  identified. 

Where  responsibility  can  not  be  placed  it  does  not  exist,  and  an 
irresponsible  power  in  government  inevitably  leads  to  oppression  or 
the  loss  of  liberty.  That  this  responsibility  shall  not  be  evaded  under 
our  representative  system  of  government,  the  constitution  of  every 
state  requires  the  legislative  record  shall  disclose  the  presence  or 
absence  of  each  legislator,  and  his  vote  and  his  position  on  every  bill. 
Where  in  the  system  of  the  Initiative,  would  this  sobering  knowledge 
of  responsibility  rest?  What  right  would  one  citizen  have  to  call 
another  to  account?  Each  would  represent  only  himself  and  with  the 
utter  lack  of  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  law  making  body,  arbi- 
trary and  irresponsible  power  would  be  enthroned  and  the  reign  of 
anarchy  commenced. 

GOV.  EMMET  O'NEAL,  of  Alabama. 
Editorial  Review,  Feb.  1912. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    45 

CASTLES  OF  WOODEN  BRICK 

Rousseau  does  not  fail  to  see  that  the  complete  exercise  of  sov- 
ereign power,  according  to  his  notion  of  it,  is  impossible;  for  how  are 
the  sovereign  people  all  to  come  together?  His  answer  is  that  modern 
states  are  a  great  deal  too  large;  he  would  imitate  the  independent 
Greek  city,  or  what  he  states  it  to  be.  When  the  people  are  assembled 
every  citizen  is  equally  a  magistrate,  and  all  government  is  in  abeyance. 
It  was  the  Frenchman  who  supplied  beforehand,  if  his  country 
would  have  appreciated  it,  an  antidote  to  Rousseau's  fictions.  Mon- 
tesquieu, with  all  his  faults  and  irregularities,  is  the  father  of  modern 
historical  research.  He  held  fast  to  the  great  truth  that  serious  poli- 
tics can  not  be  constructed  in  the  air  by  playing  with  imaginary  men 
of  any  particular  race  or  country  and  building  them  up  into  arbitrary 
combinations,  as  a  child  builds  castles  with  wooden  bricks.  He  ap- 
plied himself  to  the  study  of  political  institutions  as  belonging  to 
societies  of  different  historical  types,  and  determined  by  historical 
conditions. 

SIR  FREDERICK  POLLOCK. 
History  of  the  Science  of  Politics, 
Humboldt  Library,  pp.  31-33. 


WHERE  ROOSEVELT  GOT  HIS  CUE 

We  may  reasonably  expect  that  with  the  "recall"  apphed  to  our 
elective  offices  election  days  will  become  so  numerous  that  the  average 
citizen  will  not  have  very  much  time  left  for  his  ordinary  duties. 

Neither  is  it  a  wild  conjecture  to  assume,  if  the  tendency  shown  by 
these  laws  is  to  prevail,  that  the  referendum  will  finally  be  applied  to 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  It  might  prove  to  be  a  very  popular 
measure.  A  demagogue  would  have  a  splendid  opportunity  to  expound 
its  advantages.  He  could  confidently  ask,  "Are  you  not  willing  to 
trust  the  people?"  In  the  state  of  feeling  existing  against  the  courts 
among  many  people  all  over  the  country,  it  would  be  useless  to  en- 
deavor to  answer  the  question. 

What  a  simple  procedure  it  would  be  to  appeal  from  the  decision 
of  the  Court  to  the  people  and  have  the  latter  determine  whether  the 
judgment  of  the  Court  should  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  people! 
If  answered  in  the  negative  a  remedy  would  be  immediately  available. 
A  petition  could  be  circulated,  which  would  find  ready  signers,  to 
recall  the  judge.  This  is  not  a  visionary  or  improbable  development 
of  the  innovations  now  in  progress.  In  Rome  no  Roman  citizen  could 
be  condemned  to  capital  punishment  until  he  had  had  an  opportunity 
to  submit  his  case  to  the  people. 

HON.  ROBERT  W.  BONYNGE. 
In  Political  Innovations, 
Forum,  June,  1911,  p.  655 


46    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

PURE  DEMOCRACY  MEANS  OVERTHROW  OF 

REPUBLIC 

No  thoughtful  citizen  can  fail  to  realize  that  great  and  far  reach- 
ing changes  in  the  form  of  our  government  as  originally  established 
are  impending  and  are  in  actual  progress.  After  a  century  and  a 
quarter  of  unprecedented  natural  growth  and  development  under  the 
representative  form  of  government,  many  of  the  states  of  the 
union  have  in  recent  years  adopted  radical  innovations  in  that 
system.  If  the  movement  now  well  under  way  continues  to  spread 
and  finally  reaches  the  National  Government  the  result  must  ulti- 
mately be  the  overthrow  of  the  republic  and  the  substitution  in  its 
place  of  a  pure  democracy.  Our  institutions  were  not  hastily  adopted ; 
they  should  not  be  thoughtlessly  discarded.  Are  we  prepared  to  make 
the  change? 

HON.  ROBERT  W.  BONYNGE. 
Political  Innovations, 

Forum,  June,  1911,  p.  645. 

NOT  REFORM  BUT  ATAVISM 

The  restlessness  generated  by  pressure  against  the  conditions  of 
existence,  perpetually  prompts  the  possessor  to  try  a  new  position. 
Everyone  knows  how  long  continued  rest  in  one  attitude  becomes 
wearisome — everyone  has  found  how  even  the  best  easy  chair,  at 
first  rejoiced  in,  becomes  after  many  hours  intolerable,  and  change 
to  a  hard  seat,  previously  occupied  and  rejected,  seems  for  a  time  to 
be  a  great  relief.  It  is  the  same  with  incorporated  humanity.  Having 
by  long  struggles  emancipated  itself  from  the  hard  discipline  of  the 
ancient  regime,  having  discovered  that  the  new  regime  into  which  it 
has  grown,  though  relatively  easy,  is  not  without  stress  and  pains 
it  is  impatient  with  its  triumphs  and  wishes  to  try  another  system, 
which  other  system  is  in  principle,  if  not  in  appearance,  the  same  as 
that  which  during  past  generations  was  escaped  from  with  much  rejoicing. 

*     *     * 

Yet,  while  elevation,  mental  and  physical,  of  the  masses  is  going 
on  far  more  rapidly  than  ever  before — while  the  lowering  of  the 
death-rate  proves  that  the  average  life  is  less  trying,  there  swells 
louder  and  louder  the  cry  that  the  evils  are  so  great  that  nothing 
short  of  a  social  revolution  can  cure  them.  In  presence  of  obvious 
improvements,  joined  with  that  increase  of  longevity  which  even 
alone  yields  conclusive  proof  of  general  amelioration,  it  is  proclaimed, 
with  increasing  vehemence,  that  things  are  so  bad  that  society  must 
be  pulled  to  pieces  and  re-organized  on  another  plan. 

HERBERT  SPENCER. 
Political  Education  and 
Freedom  From  Bondage. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    47 

A  WELL  REGULATED  DEMOCRACY 

The  supporters  of  the  Constitution  claim  the  title  of  being  the 
firm  friends  of  the  liberty  and  the  rights  of  mankind.  They  say  that 
they  consider  it  as  the  best  means  of  protecting  liberty.  We,  Sir, 
idealize  democracy.  Those  who  oppose  it  have  bestowed  eulogiums 
on  monarchy.  We  prefer  this  system  to  any  monarchy  because  we  are 
convinced  that  it  has  a  greater  tendency  to  secure  our  liberty  and  pro- 
mote our  happiness.  We  admire  it,  because  we  think  it  a  well  regu- 
lated democracy. 

The  honorable  gentleman  has  asked  if  there  be  any  safety  or 
freedom,  when  we  give  away  the  sword  and  the  purse.  Shall  the 
people  at  large  hold  the  sword  and  the  purse  without  the  interposi- 
tion of  their  representatives?  Can  the  whole  aggregate  community  act 
personally?  I  apprehend  that  every  gentleman  will  see  the  impossibility 
of  this.  Must  they,  then,  not  trust  them  to  others?  And  to  whom  are 
they  to  trust  them  but  to  representatives,  who  are  accountable  for 
their  conduct. 

JOHN  MARSHALL. 
Speech  in  Virginia  Convention,  June  10,  1788. 

FATE  OF  PURE  DEMOCRACIES 

So  great  is  the  force  of  laws,  and  of  particular  forms  of  govern- 
ment, and  so  little  dependence  have  they  on  the  humours  and  tempers 
of  men,  that  consequences  almost  as  general  and  certain  may  some- 
times be  deduced  from  them,  as  any  which  the  mathematical  sciences 
afford  us. 

The  constitution  of  the  Roman  republic  gave  the  whole  legis- 
lative power  to  the  people,  without  allowing  a  negative  voice  either 
to  the  nobility  or  consuls.  This  unbounded  power  they  possessed  in 
a  collective,  not  in  a  representative  body.  The  consequences  were: 
when  the  people,  by  success  and  conquest,  had  become  very  numerous, 
and  had  spread  themselves  to  a  great  distance  from  the  capital,  the 
city  tribes,  though  the  most  contemptible,  carried  almost  every  vote; 
they  were,  therefore,  most  cajoled  by  every  one  that  affected  pop- 
ularity; they  were  supported  in  idleness  by  the  general  distribution 
of  corn,  and  by  particular  bribes,  which  they  received  from  almost 
every  candidate;  by  this  means,  they  became  every  day  more  licen- 
tious, and  the  Campus  Martins  was  a  perpetual  scene  of  tumult  and 
sedition;  armed  slaves  were  introduced  among  these  rascally  citizens, 
so  that  the  whole  government  fell  into  anarchy;  and  the  greatest 
happiness  which  the  Romans  could  look  for,  was  the  despotic  power 
of  the  Caesars.  Such  are  the  effects  of  democracy  without  a  repre- 
sentative. 

DAVID  HUME. 
The  Science  of  Politics,  p.  9. 


48    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

PURE  DEMOCRACIES  SHORT  LIVED 

From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  may  be  concluded  that  a  pure 
democracy,  by  which  I  mean  a  society  consisting  of  a  small  number  of 
citizens,  who  assemble  and  administer  the  government,  in  person,  can 
admit  of  no  cure  for  the  mischiefs  of  faction.  Hence  it  is  that  such 
democracies  have  ever  been  spectacles  of  turbulence  and  contention, 
have  ever  been  found  incompatible  with  personal  security,  or  the 
rights  of  property,  and  have  in  general  been  as  short  in  their  lives  as 
they  have  been  violent  in  their  deaths. 

Theoretic  politicians,  who  have  patronized  this  species  of  govern- 
ment, have  erroneously  supposed  that  by  reducing  mankind  to  a  per- 
fect equality  in  their  political  rights,  they  would  at  the  same  time  be 
perfectly  equalized  and  assimilated  in  their  possessions,  their  opinions, 
and  their  passions. 

A  republic,  by  which  I  mean  a  government  in  which  representa- 
tion takes  place,  opens  a  different  prospect,  and  promises  the  cure  for 
which  we  are  seeking. 

JAMES  MADISON. 
Federalist,  Letter  X. 


POLITICAL  IDEAS  OF  THE  FATHERS 

Prerogative  and  popular  rights  should  be  so  balanced  as  to 
protect  the  nation  from  tyranny  on  the  one  side  and  from  mob  rule 
on  the  other.  The  different  estates  of  the  realm  should  be  so  repre- 
sented in  the  government  that  each  should  be  able  to  check  excess  on 
the  part  of  the  other.  Support  for  this  doctrine  was  found  in  the 
writings  of  Aristotle,  Polybius,  Cicero  and  Tacitus.  Montesquieu's 
adherence  to  it  in  opposition  to  the  general  current  of  European 
opinion  made  his  "Spirit  of  the  Laws"  more  influential  in  England 
and  America  than  that  great  work  ever  was  in  the  author's  own 
country. 

Blackstone  exhibited  this  doctrine  as  the  fundamental  principle 
of  the  British  constitution,  with  such  a  parade  of  learning  as  to  make 
his  conclusion  seem  indisputable  and  with  such  noble  resources  of 
style  that  the  "Commentaries"  took  rank  as  a  literary  classic,  as 
well  as  a  law  book.  The  same  doctrine  eventually  received  from 
Edmund  Burke  the  most  eloquent  expression  ever  given  to  political 
ideas.  It  floats  in  the  music  of  his  grandest  passages — as  when  he 
speaks  of, 

"That  action  and  interaction  which  in  the  natural  and  in  the 
pohtical  world,  from  the  reciprocal  struggles  of  discordant  powers, 
draws  out  the  harmony  of  the  universe." 

PROF.  HENRY  JONES  FORD, 

of  Princeton  University. 
Rise  and  Growth  of  American  Politics,  p.  29. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    49 

FREEDOM  OF  PUBLIC  SERVANTS 

In  short,  democratic  government  means  freedom,  independence — 
combined  with  genuine  responsibility  to  the  people — through  the 
entire  body  politic;  for  public  servants,  as  well  as  for  their  employers; 
for  public  officials  as  well  as  the  mass  of  citizens.  Every  public  servant 
must  be  carefully  selected.  He  must  be  held  to  constant  thorough 
responsibility,  in  some  way  which  will  be  really  effective.  But  he  must 
have  freedom;  the  same  freedom  that  wise  administrators  give  to  their 
employees  in  private  employments.  In  private  employments,  we 
trust  men.  We  give  them  our  confidence.  We  find  that  to  be  the 
surest  way  of  making  them  deserve  our  confidence.  There  is  no  at- 
mosphere so  certain  to  make  men  dishonest  and  inefficient,  as  the 
atmosphere  of  doubt  and  distrust. 

ALBERT  STICKNEY. 
Organized  Democracy,  p.  69. 


FAVOR  EVOLUTION,  NOT  REVOLUTION 

My  Dear  Mr.  Betts: 

The  number  of  the  "Republican"  which  you  have  sent  me  has 
interested  me  greatly,  not  only  as  a  triumph  of  good  work,  but  as  an 
evidence  that  you  are  in  control  of  a  stronghold  of  right  reason.  I  am 
also  naturally  glad  to  find  that  my  general  opinions  are  very  similar 
to  your  own.  Your  feelings  regarding  Mr.  Roosevelt,  as  you  state 
them,  seem  almost  identical  with  those  which  I  hold,  and  your  reply 
to  him  in  the  correspondence  given  on  page  11  seems  to  me  admirable, 
both  as  regards  matter  and  manner.  Like  yourself  I  regard  him  with 
admiration  and  gratitude,  while  regretting  several  minor  features  in 
his  career.  Your  attitude,  also,  throughout  the  various  questions 
incidentally  touched  upon,  commends  itself  as  thoroughly  sound  and 
sane,  and  I  am  glad  to  see  opinions  which  I  hold  stated  with  such 
clearness  and  cogency;  indeed,  I  can  recall  no  general  treatment  of 
political  questions  in  recent  years  which  seems  to  me  more  likely  to 
influence  public  opinion  healthfully. 

Like  yourself  I  am  hoping  to  see  a  vigorous  reaction  against  the 
multitude  of  absurd  proposals  for  so-called  "reforms"  which  would 
only  increase  the  evils  we  have  and  add  to  them  new  ills  which,  as  yet, 
we  know  not  of,  and  my  feeling  is  that  it  is  just  such  modes  of  argu- 
ment as  those  which  you  employ  that  will  bring  in  the  "sober  second 
thought,"  on  which  we  must  rely  for  any  betterment  of  the  present 
condition  of  things. 

We  are  evidently  alike  in  preferring  Evolution  to  Revolution. 

HON.  ANDREW  D.  WHITE 
In  a  personal  Letter  to  the 

Editor  of  The  Lyons  Republican. 


50    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

ATHENIAN  ASSEMBLY  A  MOB 

Nothing  can  be  more  fallacious  than  to  found  our  political  cal- 
culations on  arithmetical  principles.  Sixty  or  seventy  men  may  be 
more  properly  trusted  with  a  given  degree  of  power  than  six  or  seven. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  600  or  700  would  be  proportionately  a 
better  depository.  And  if  we  carry  on  the  supposition  to  6,000  or 
7,000  the  whole  reasoning  ought  to  be  reversed.  The  truth  is  that  in 
all  cases  a  certain  number  at  least,  seems  to  be  necessary  to  secure 
the  benefits  of  free  consultation  and  discussion,  and  to  guard  against 
too  easy  a  combination  for  improper  purposes;  as,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  number  ought  at  most  to  be  kept  within  a  certain  limit  in  order 
to  avoid  the  confusion  and  intemperance  of  the  multitude.  In  all 
very  numerous  assemblies,  of  whatever  character  composed,  passion 
never  fails  to  wrest  the  scepter  from  reason.  Had  every  Athenian 
citizen  been  a  Socrates,  every  Athenian  assembly  would  still  have 
been  a  mob. 

JOHN  JAY. 
Federalist,  Letter  LIV. 

HEMLOCK  ONE  DAY,   STATUES   THE   NEXT 

Thus  far  I  have  considered  the  circumstances  which  point  out 
the  necessity  of  a  well  constructed  Senate,  only  as  they  relate  to  the 
representatives  of  the  people.  To  a  people  as  little  blinded  by  preju- 
dice or  corrupted  by  flattery  as  those  whom  I  address,  I  shall  not 
scruple  to  add  that  such  an  institution  may  be  sometimes  necessary  as 
a  defense  to  the  people  against  their  own  temporary  errors  and  de- 
lusions. As  the  cool  and  deliberate  sense  of  the  community  ought  in  all 
governments,  and  actually  will  in  all  free  governments,  ultimately 
prevail  over  the  views  of  its  rulers,  so  there  are  particular  moments  in 
public  affairs  when  the  people,  stimulated  by  some  irregular  passion 
or  some  illicit  advantage,  or  misled  by  the  artful  misrepresentations 
of  interested  men,  may  call  for  measures  which  they  themselves  will 
afterwards  be  the  most  ready  to  lament  and  condemn.  In  these 
critical  moments,  how  salutary  will  be  the  interference  of  some  tem- 
perate and  respectable  body  of  citizens,  in  order  to  check  the  mis- 
guided career,  and  to  suspend  the  blow,  meditated  by  the  people 
against  themselves,  until  reason,  justice  and  truth  can  regain  their 
authority  over  the  public  mind. 

What  bitter  anguish  would  not  the  people  of  Athens  have  often 
escaped  if  their  government  had  contained  so  provident  a  safe-guard 
against  the  tyranny  of  their  own  passions?  Popular  liberty  might  then 
have  escaped  the  indelible  reproach  of  decreeing  to  the  same  citizens 
the  hemlock  on  one  day,  and  statues  on  the  next. 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON. 
Letter  LXII,  Federalist,  World's  Great  Classics. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  i)ISOUSSI()N'  ^  51 

TO   ACT   RIGHTLY   REQUIRES    STUDY    AND 
INVESTIGATION 

Pascal  said,  that  most  of  the  evils  of  life  arose  from  "man's  being 
unable  to  sit  still  in  a  room";  and  though  I  do  not  go  that  length,  it  is 
certain  that  we  should  have  been  a  far  wiser  race  than  we  are  if  we 
had  been  ready  to  sit  quiet, — we  should  have  known  much  better  the 
way  in  which  it  was  best  to  act  when  we  came  to  act. 

To  act  rightly  in  modern  society  requires  a  good  deal  of  previous 
study,  a  great  deal  of  assimilated  information,  a  great  deal  of  sharp- 
ened imagination,  and  these  prerequisites  of  sound  action  require 
much  time,  and  I  was  going  to  say,  much  "lying  in  the  sun,"  "a  long 
period  of  mere  passiveness."  Even  the  art  of  killing  one  another, 
which  at  first  particularly  trained  men  to  be  quick,  now  requires  them 
to  be  slow,  A  hasty  general  is  the  worst  of  generals  nowadays;  the 
best  is  a  sort  of  Von  Moltke,  who  is  passive  if  any  man  ever  was  pas- 
sive; who  is,  "silent  in  seven  languages."  This  man  plays  a  restrained 
and  considerate  game  of  chess  with  his  enemy. 

WALTER  BAGEHOT. 
In  Physics  and  Politics, 

Humboldt  Library,  pp.  182-3. 


COLLECTIVISM  IMPOSSIBLE 

There  is  only  one  state  of  affairs  under  which  equality  is  possible, 
that  is,  when  no  one  possesses  and  no  one  can  acquire  any  thing.  But 
surely  collectivism  is  a  chima^ra,  an  Utopia,  a  thing  impossible.  Cer- 
tainly it  is  impossible  in  the  sense  that  in  the  country  which  adopts  it, 
the  source  of  all  initiative  will  be  destroyed.  No  man  will  make  an 
effort  to  improve  his  position,  since  it  must  never  be  improved.  The 
whole  country  will  become  one  of  those  stagnant  pools.  The  country 
that  reforms  itself  in  this  way  would  be  conquered  at  the  end  of  ten 
years  by  some  neighboring  people,  more  or  less  ambitious.  That 
admits  of  no  question;  but  what  does  it  prove?  That  collectivism 
is  only  impossible  because  it  is  only  possible  if  established  in  every 
country  at  once.  We  must,  therefore,  take  our  problems  in  order  and 
abolish  nationalities  before  we  can  establish  collectivism. 

Thus  equality  demands  the  abolition  of  inheritance,  and  the 
equality  of  possessions.  Equality  of  possessions  necessitates  col- 
lectivism and  collectivism  requires  the  abolition  of  nationalities. 
We  are  egalitarians,  than  collectivists,  and  by  logical  consequence,  anti- 
patriots. 

PROFESSOR  EMILE  FAGUET, 

of  the  French  Academy. 
The  Cult  of  Incompetence,  pp.  200-203. 


52    BETTS-RO'OSEVlELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

CONSTITUTIONAL  LIMITATIONS  IMPER- 
SONAL 

There  is  prejudice  in  some  minds  against  the  discussion  of  con- 
stitutional limitations,  because  lawyers  become  dry  and  tedious  and 
narrow  and  technical  in  discussing  them,  but  they  are  the  declaration 
of  those  principles  of  eternal  justice  upon  which  civilization  rests, 
set  up  by  the  people  for  their  own  guidance.  They  are  a  covenant 
between  all  the  people,  and  every  man,  every  woman  and  every  child 
in  the  state.  They  are  a  covenant  between  arbitrary  and  over- 
whelming power  and  the  weakness  of  the  individual.  These  constitu- 
tional limitations  are  necessarily  established  in  the  abstract.  They 
are  impersonal.  They  are  the  rules  of  action  which  are  established 
when  men  have  no  particular  interest  at  stake.  They  are  the  rules  of 
action  that  are  established  when  there  is  no  strong  desire  to  do  injus- 
tice. Universal  and  impersonal,  they  constitute  the  nearest  approach 
that  humanity  has  ever  come  to  putting  into  human  law  the  divine 
rules  conformity  to  which  is  the  requisite  of  a  Christian  civilization. 

SENATOR  ELIHU  ROOT. 
Speech  at  Rochester  Convention, 
April  10,  1912. 


BUILT  UPON  THE  ROCK  OF  REASON 

The  foundations  of  our  government  are  laid  in  the  principle  that 
a  people  can  best  govern  themselves  by  selecting  from  their  midst 
representatives  who  shall  act  for  them  and  bear  the  responsibility 
in  the  broad  light  of  day.  And  at  no  time  have  our  people  been  unable 
to  control  their  destinies  under  this  system.  No  executive  or  legisla- 
ture has  ever  succeeded  in  ultimately  thwarting  the  popular  will. 
If  there  has  seemed  to  be  delay  at  times,  that  delay  has  been  generally 
compensated  for  by  an  added  efficiency  in  the  reform  which  is  ulti- 
mately accomplished.  The  structure  which  has  sheltered  us  for  so 
many  years  has  from  time  to  time  developed  defects,  but  it  has 
sheltered  us  remarkably  well,  and  its  foundations  are  built  upon  the 
rock  of  reason.  We  are  urged  to  tear  the  structure  down,  uproot  the 
foundations  and  substitute  for  it  a  scheme  of  government  which  is  not 
new  by  any  means,  but  rather  is  as  old  almost  as  human  history.  It 
was  tried  in  the  democracies  of  antiquity,  and  in  every  instance  dis- 
aster, anarchy  and  tyranny  resulted. 

HON.  JAMES  W.  WADSWORTH,  JR. 
Former  Speaker  of  the  New  York  State  Assembly. 
Speech  at  Rochester  Convention, 
April  10,  1912 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    53 

THE  CONVENTION  SYSTEM 

It  is  to  induce  our  friends  to  act  upon  this  important  and  uni- 
versally acknowledged  truth,  that  we  urge  the  adoption  of  the  con- 
vention system.  Reflection  will  prove  that  there  is  no  other  way  of 
practically  applying  it.  In  its  appHcation  we  know  there  will  be 
incidents  temporarily  painful,  but  after  all  those  incidents  will  be 
fewer  and  less  intense  with  than  without  the  system. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

Springfield,  March  1,  1843. 


NOT  A  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEMOCRACY 

A  fifth  form  of  democracy  is  that  in  which  not  the  law  but  the 
multitude  has  the  supreme  power,  and  supersedes  the  law  by  its 
decrees.  This  is  a  state  of  affairs  brought  about  by  the  demagogues. 
For  in  democracies  which  are  subject  to  the  law,  the  best  citizens  hold 
the  first  place  and  there  are  no  demagogues;  but  where  the  laws  are 
not  supreme,  there  demagogues  spring  up.  For  the  people  becomes 
a  monarch  and  is  many  in  one;  and  the  many  have  the  power  in  their 
hands,  not  as  individuals  but  collectively. 

And  the  people,  who  is  now  a  monarch,  and  no  longer  under  the 
control  of  law,  seeks  to  exercise  monarchical  sway  and  grows  into  a 
despot;  the  flatterer  is  held  in  honor;  this  sort  of  democracy  being 
relatively  to  other  democracies  what  tyranny  is  to  other  forms  of 
monarchy. 

The  spirit  of  both  is  the  same,  and  they  alike  exercise  a  despotic 
rule  over  the  better  citizens.  The  decrees  of  the  Demos  correspond 
to  the  edicts  of  the  tyrant,  and  the  demagogue  is  to  the  one  what  the 
flatterer  is  to  the  other. 

Both  have  great  power, — the  jQatterer  with  the  tyrant,  the  dema- 
gogue with  the  democracies  of  the  kind  which  we  are  describing. 
The  demagogues  make  the  decrees  of  the  people  override  the  laws, 
and  refer  all  things  to  the  popular  assembly.  And  therefore  they  grow 
great,  because  the  people  has  all  things  in  its  hands  and  they  hold  in 
their  hands  the  votes  of  the  people,  who  is  too  ready  to  listen  to  them. 
Such  a  democracy  is  fairly  open  to  the  objection  that  it  is  not  a  con- 
stitution at  all;  for  where  the  laws  have  no  authority  there  is  no  con- 
stitution. 

The  law  ought  to  be  supreme  over  all.  So  that  if  democracy  be 
a  real  form  of  government,  the  sort  of  constitution  in  which  all  things 
are  regulated  by  decrees  is  clearly  not  a  democracy  in  the  true  sense  of 
the  word.    For  decrees  relate  only  to  particulars. 

ARISTOTLE. 
The  Politics.     See  Works. 


54    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

THE  MASSES 

Self-government  is  the  natural  government  of  man,  and  for  proof, 
I  refer  to  the  Aboriginees  of  our  own  land.  Were  I  to  speculate  in 
hypotheses,  unfavorable  to  human  liberty,  my  speculations  should 
be  founded  rather  upon  the  vices,  refinements  or  density  of  popu- 
lation. Crowded  together  in  compact  masses,  even  if  they  were 
philosophers,  the  contagion  of  the  passions  is  communicated  and 
caught,  and  the  effect,  too  often,  I  admit,  is  the  overthrow  of  Liberty. 

HENRY  CLAY. 
Works,  Vol.  1,  p.  245. 


THE  DRIVE  OF  CIVILIZATION 

The  drive  of  modern  civilization  has  forced  us  to  specialization 
along  every  other  line.  Why  not  in  affairs  of  state?  If  any  individual 
should  attempt  to  be  his  own  lawyer,  physician  and  dentist,  in  these 
days,  we  should  certainly  "write  him  down  an  ass!"  And  with  reason, 
because  we  would  know  he  was  foredoomed  to  get  his  legal  affairs 
hopelessly  entangled,  his  health  endangered  and  his  teeth  in  a  bad 
state.  Why  apply  any  different  rule  to  governmental  matters? 
Because  they  are  simpler?  And  truly  that  would  be  ignorant  or  rash 
to  make  any  such  assertion!  The  task  of  the  lawyer  or  doctor  assumes 
diminutive  proportions  when  compared  with  the  tremendous  problems 
which  any  one  in  a  government  post  must  consider  and  determine. 
The  complexity  and  gravity  of  the  problems  we  are  facing  in  state  and 
nation  is  so  great,  that  the  strong,  trained  man  of  experience  in  govern- 
mental administration  must  often  shrink  from  the  responsibiltiy  of 
attempting  to  solve  them,  when  he  reflects  on  the  consequences  of  a 
misstep.  Does  the  mass  of  untrained  and  uninformed  men  regard 
themselves  as  better  able  to  look  out  for  these  important  affairs, 
simply  because  of  their  great  number?  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  other 
superior  qualifications  they  possess  over  the  representative  of  training, 
conscience  and  education. 

*     *     * 

In  view  of  our  manifest  efforts  to  lessen  their  power  and  respon- 
sibility (our  representatives)  could  we  expect  any  thing  but  a  decrease 
in  their  efficiency  and  sense  of  duty?  The  defects  which  have  troubled 
us  in  our  representative  system  would  seem  to  be  along  exactly  the 
opposite  line  to  that  which  we  have  thus  far  pursued. 

Let  us  cease  to  deprive  our  representatives  of  power  and  responsi- 
bility; let  us  place  real  power  in  their  hands  and  as  a  corollary  hold 
them  to  a  rigid  and  comprehensive  accountability. 

JOHN  S.  SHEPPERD,  JR. 
Reyresentation  in  Popular  Government, 
Forum,  June,  1910,  pp.  647-8. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    55 

THE  IDEAL  TYPE  OF  GOVERNMENT 

From  these  accumulated  considerations,  it  is  evident,  that  the 
only  government  which  can  fully  satisfy  all  the  exigencies  of  the  social 
state,  is  one  in  which  the  whole  people  participate;  that  any  partici- 
pation, even  in  the  smallest  public  function,  is  useful;  that  the  partici- 
pation should  everywhere  be  as  great  as  the  general  degree  of  improve- 
ment of  the  community  will  allow;  and  that  nothing  less  can  be 
ultimately  desirable,  than  the  admission  of  all  to  a  share  in  the  sove- 
reign power  of  the  state.  But  since  all  cannot,  in  a  community  exceed- 
ing a  single  small  town,  participate  personally  in  any  but  some  very 
minor  portions  of  the  public  business,  it  follows  that  the  ideal  type  of  a 
perfect  government  must  he  representative. 

JOHN  STEWART  MILL. 
Representative  Government,  p.  66. 

THE  PHYSIOLOGY  OF  POLITICS 

To  advocate  in  this  twentieth  century  the  importance  of  study- 
ing the  actual  working  of  government  may  seem  like  watering  a 
garden  in  the  midst  of  rain.  But  that  this  is  not  the  case  every  one 
must  be  aware  who  is  familiar  with  current  political  literature  on  such 
living  topics  as  proportional  representation,  the  referendum  and 
initiative,  and  the  reform  of  municipal  government.  These  discus- 
sions are  for  the  most  part  conducted  in  the  air.  They  are  theoretical, 
treating  mainly  of  what  ought  to  happen,  rather  than  what  actually 
occurs;  and  even  when  they  condescend  to  deal  with  facts  it  is  usually 
on  a  limited  scale  with  very  superficial  attention  to  the  conditions 
under  which  the  facts  took  place.  The  waste  of  precious  efforts  at 
reform,  from  a  failure  to  grasp  the  actual  forces  at  work,  is  indeed  one 
of  the  melancholy  chapters  in  our  history.  Earnest  men,  overflowing 
with  public  spirit,  sometimes  remind  one  of  a  woodpecker  in  Cam- 
bridge, some  years  ago,  who  strove  loudly  for  an  entire  forenoon  to 
drill  a  hole  in  a  copper  gutter.  Reformers  are  prone  to  imagine  that 
a  new  device  will  work  as  they  intend  it  to  work,  and  are  disappointed 
that  it  does  not  do  so.  They  are  far  too  apt  to  assume  that  if  their 
panacea  be  adopted  mankind  will  become  regenerate;  whereas  the 
only  fair  supposition  is  that  men  will  remain  under  any  system  essen- 
tially what  they  are— a  few  good,  a  few  bad,  and  the  mass  indifferent 
to  matters  that  do  not  touch  their  personal  interests.  All  reform 
movements  need  for  criticism  a  devil's  advocate  who  is  not,  however, 
believed  to  be  in  league  with  the  devil;  or  rather  they  need  advice 
from  people  who  are  really  familiar  with  the  actual  working  of  many 
poHtical  institutions.  In  short,  they  need  men  with  a  scientific  know- 
ledge of  the  physiology  of  politics. 

PROF.  A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL. 
Political  Science  Review, 
Feb.  1910. 


56    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

AMERICAN  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLES 

I  will  venture  to  state,  in  a  few  words,  what  I  take  these  Amer- 
ican political  principles  in  substance  to  be.  They  consist,  as  I  think, 
in  the  first  place,  in  the  estabhshment  of  popular  governments  on  the 
basis  of  representation.  We  are  at  the  head  of  representative  popular 
governments. 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 
Bunker  Hill  Oration 


ANTI-RACE  SUICIDE 

The  greatest  social  problem  of  our  age  is  how  to  stop  the  constant 
flow  of  the  great  Amazon  of  ignorance,  viciousness,  inefficiency  and 
incompetency  which  is  flooding  the  country. 

This  ever-widening  river  finds  its  source  in  the  excessive  multi- 
plication of  the  ignorant  and  inefficient  native  and  foreign  element  of 
our  society. 

The  result  is  that  the  country  is  being  flooded  with  a  population 
which,  by  reason  of  its  incompetency  and  inefficiency,  is  unfitted 
for  the  struggle  of  life  under  our  modern  complex  civilization  and 
rapidly  changing  industrial  development. 

The  time  has  come  when  we  will  have  to  pay  a  little  more  atten- 
tion to  race  regeneration  if  we  ever  expect  to  solve  the  great  social 
problems  that  confront  us. 

There  never  was,  in  the  history  of  the  world,  such  a  wide  and 
steady  demand  for  efficiency  and  there  never  was  such  a  limited  supply. 
There  never  was  such  an  overflow  of  inefficiency  and  for  it  there  never 
was  such  a  limited  demand.  The  field  for  the  display  of  energy,  in- 
dustry and  talent  was  never  so  wide;  the  field  for  the  display  of 
ignorance,  incompetency  and  inefficiency  was  never  so  small. 

It  is  this  ever  increasing  demand  for  efficiency  and  the  limited 
supply,  and  this  constantly  increasing  supply  of  inefficiency  and 
limited  demand,  which  is  the  main  factor  in  creating  the  social  prob- 
lems of  our  time. 

We  are  multiplying  humanity  at  a  tremendous  ratio,  from  the 
wrong  source — from  the  bottom  instead  of  the  top.  This  is  the  cause 
of  more  than  half  our  ills.  It  is  not  the  system  of  government  that  is  at 
fault.     It  is  the  system  of  multiplying  the  wrong  kind  of  people. 

Suppose  we  were  to  breed  our  domestic  animals  along  the  same 
line?  How  long  would  it  be  before  we  would  have  a  crowded  domestic 
animal  population,  the  chief  bulls  and  rams  (demagogues)  of  w^hich 
would  be  rearing  upon  their  hind  legs  and  demanding  a  pure  democ- 
racy, direct  nominations,  the  initiative,  the  referendum  and  the  recall 
of  the  thorough-breds  who  had  distanced  them  in  the  race. 

This  is  exactly  what  is  happening  in  the  human  kingdom. 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSIOX    57 

A  REPUBLIC  DEFINED 

A  republic  is  not  founded  on  virtue:  it  is  founded  on  the  ambi- 
tion of  every  citizen,  which  checks  the  ambition  of  others;  on  pride 
restraining  pride;  and  on  the  desire  of  ruling,  which  will  not  suffer 
another  to  rule.  Hence  are  formed  laws  which  preserve  as  great  an 
equality  as  possible.  It  is  a  society  where  the  guests  eat  at  the  same 
table  with  an  equal  appetite,  until  a  strong  and  voracious  man  comes, 
who  takes  all  to  himself,  and  leaves  them  only  the  crumbs. 

VOLTAIRE. 
Works,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  237. 

MOST  BARBAROUS  JUDGES  IN  THE  WORLD 

It  is  difficult  to  w^eigh,  in  an  exquisitely  nice  balance,  the  iniquities 
of  the  republic  of  Athens  and  of  the  court  of  Macedon.  We  still 
upbraid  the  Athenians  with  the  banishment  of  Cimon,  Aristides, 
Themistocles,  and  Alcibiades,  and  the  sentences  of  death  upon  Phocion 
and  Socrates;  sentences  similar  in  absurdity  and  cruelty  to  those  of 
some  of  our  own  tribunals. 

In  short,  what  we  can  never  pardon  in  the  Athenians  is  the  execu- 
tion of  their  six  victorious  generals,  condemned  because  they  had  not 
time  to  bury  their  dead  after  the  victory,  and  because  they  were  pre- 
vented from  doing  so  by  a  tempest.  The  sentence  is  at  once  so  ridicu- 
lous and  barbarous,  it  bears  such  a  stamp  of  superstition  and  ingrat- 
itude, that  those  of  the  Inquisition,  those  delivered  against  Urbain 
Grandier,  against  the  wife  of  Marshal  d'Ancre,  against  jMontrin,  and 
against  innumerable  sorcerers  and  witches,  etc.,  are  not,  in  fact,  fool- 
eries more  atrocious. 

*  *     * 

The  evil  is,  in  consigning  living  men  to  the  executioner;  living 
men  who  have  won  a  battle  for  you;  living  men,  to  whom  you  ought 
to  be  devoutly  grateful. 

Thus,  then,  are  the  Athenians  convicted  of  having  been  at  once 
the  most  silly  and  the  most  barbarous  judges  in  the  world. 

*  *     * 

They  asked  pardon  of  Socrates  after  his  death,  and  erected  to  his 
memory  the  small  temple  called  Socrateion.  Thej-  asked  pardon  of 
Phocion,  and  raised  a  statue  to  his  honor.  They  asked  pardon  of  the 
six  generals,  so  ridiculusly  condemned  and  so  basely  executed.  They 
confined  in  chains  the  principal  accuser,  who,  with  difficulty,  escaped 

from  pubhc  vengeance. 

*  *     * 

Democracy  seems  to  suit  only  a  very  small  country;  and  even 
that  fortunately  situated.  Small  as  it  may  be,  it  will  commit  many 
faults,  because  it  will  be  composed  of  men. 

VOLTAIRE. 
Works,  Vol.  VIII.,  pp.  76-80. 


58    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

LAW,  NOT  MEN 

He  who  bids  the  law  rule,  may  be  deemed  to  bid  God  and  Reason 
alone  rule.  But  he  who  bids  man  rule,  adds  an  element  of  the  beast; 
for  desire  is  a  wild  beast,  and  passion  perverts  the  minds  of  Rulers, 
even  when  they  are  the  best  of  men.  The  law  is  reason  unaffected  by 
desire. 

ARISTOTLE. 
The  Politics.     World's  Great  Classics,  p.  82. 


GENUINE  REFORINI  ADVOCATED 

I  am  in  favor  of  instituting  a  genuine  reform  in  the  interest  of  the 
people,  in  the  interest  of  the  taxpayers,  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
business  prosperity  and  in  the  interests  of  morality  and  good  govern- 
ment. I  would  do  it  by  reducing  and  not  increasing  elections,  and  I 
would  do  it  by  reducing  the  number  of  elections  in  the  state  to  one  in 
four  years,  and  by  reducing  the  number  of  elections  in  the  nation  to 
one  in  eight  years,  and  then  I  would  have  but  one  session  of  the  State 
Legislature  in  two  years.  I  would  also  lengthen  the  term  of  all  elective 
representative  officers  so  that  they  would  have  time  to  attend  to  the 
public  business  instead  of  spending  all  their  time  preparing  for  a  re- 
election. 

By  reducing  the  number  of  sessions  of  the  legislature  we  would  be 
able  to  reduce  the  number  of  foolish  laws,  which  are  enacted  to  hamper 
individual  initiative,  to  interfere  with  the  natural  freedom  of  the 
people,  and  curtail  the  personal  liberty  of  citizens. 

By  reducing  the  number  of  elections  we  would  reduce  enormously 
expense  to  the  taxpayers;  we  would  reduce  strife,  bitterness,  conten- 
tion, bribery  and  corruption  and  promote  the  cause  of  morality,  of 
peace,  of  prosperity  and  of  good  and  stable  government. 

You  may  not  have  thought  of  it,  but  it  is  a  fact,  nevertheless,  that 
when  conditions  are  normal,  when  there  is  no  strife  and  contention, 
when  every  individual  is  attending  to  his  own  business  and  letting 
everybody  else  do  the  same,  when  everybody  is  giving  his  time,  his 
thought  and  his  effort  to  the  increasing  and  upbuilding  of  his  own 
business  and  there  are  no  elections  to  interrupt  business,  prosperity 
advances  by  leaps  and  bounds,  because  under  such  conditions  brains, 
hke  cream,  rise  to  the  top  and  take  command  of  the  situation. 

But  when  everybody's  attention  is  distracted  from  business  to 
politics,  when  a  large  class  of  our  citizens  are  neglecting  their  own 
business  to  engage  in  politics,  and  when  everybody  is  in  doubt  and 
owing  to  the  uncertainty  of  elections,  afraid  to  invest  money  or  in- 
crease their  business  obligations,  when  all  is  strife  and  contention,  and 
we  are  all  stirred  up  in  the  political  turmoil  incident  to  elections,  then 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    59 

it  is  that  the  froth  rises  to  the  top  and  the  nimble  tongued,  leather 
lunged  demagogue  comes  to  the  front  and  takes  command  of  the 
situation. 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 
Speech  at  Lyons,  Oct.  9,  1910. 

THE  GRAND  INSTRUMENT  OF  CIVILIZATION 

The  formation  of  any  plan  for  Social  Organization  necessarily 
embraces  two  series  of  works,  as  distinct  in  their  objects  as  in  the 
kind  of  capacity  they  demand.  One,  Theoretical  or  Spiritual,  aims 
at  developing  the  leading  conception  of  the  plan — that  is  to  say,  the 
new  principle  destined  to  co-ordinate  social  relations — and  at  forming 
the  system  of  general  ideas,  fitted  to  guide  Society.  The  other, 
Practical  or  Temporal,  decides  upon  the  distribution  of  authority, 
and  the  combination  of  administrative  institutions  best  adapted  to 
the  spirit  of  the  system  already  determined  by  the  Theoretical  labours. 

*  *     * 

Every  social  system,  whether  constructed  for  a  handful  of  men 
or  for  several  milHons,  aims  definitely  at  directing  all  special  forces 
towards  a  general  result;  for  the  exercise  of  a  general  and  combined 
activity  is  the  essence  of  society.  On  every  other  hjq^othesis,  there  is 
merely  an  agglomeration  of  a  certain  number  of  persons  upon  the 
same  soil.  It  is  this  which  distinguishes  human  society  from  that  of 
other  gregarious  animals. 

Hence  it  follows  that  the  clear  and  precise  ascertainment  of  the 
active  Aim  constitutes  the  first  and  most  important  condition  of  a 
true  social  order,  since  this  fixes  the  true  meaning  of  the  system. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  society,  however  numerous  it  may  be,  can, 
just  as  an  individual,  propose  to  itself  only  one  of  two  possible  active 
Aims.  These  are,  a  violent  action  upon  the  rest  of  the  human  race, 
that  is  to  say,  conquest;  and  an  action  upon  Nature,  modifying  it  for 
the  advantage  of  Man,  or  -production.  Every  society  which  is  not 
definitely  organized  for  one  or  other  of  these  aims,  must  he  a  mongrel 
one,  devoid  of  character.  The  Military  aim  characterized  the  Old 
System,  while  the  Industrial  aim  characterizes  the  Modern  one. 

The  first  step  needed  for  Social  Reorganization,  was,  therefore 

to  proclaim  this  new  Aim. 

*  *     * 

In  the  earliest  infancy  of  the  human  mind,  Theoretical  and 
Practical  labours  are  executed  by  the  same  person  for  all  operations; 
yet  this  circumstance,  while  rendering  the  distinction  less  evident,  does 
not  effect  its  realit}'.  Soon,  however,  these  two  classes  of  operations 
begin  to  disengage  themselves,  as  demanding  different,  and  in  some 
respects  contrasted,  capacities  and  training.  As  the  collective  and 
individual  inteUigence  of  the  human  race  develops  itself,  this  separa- 
tion becomes  more  and  more  pronounced,  and  general,  and  consti- 


60    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

tutes  the  source  of  new  advances.  The  degree  of  a  nation's  civiliza- 
tion, philosophically  considered,  may  be  really  measured  by  the 
extent  to  which  Theory  and  Practice  have  been  separated  and  har- 
monized. For  the  grand  instrument  of  Civilization  consists  in  the 
Division  of  Labor  and  the  Combination  of  Efforts. 

AUGUSTE  COMTE. 

Scientific  Reorganization 

of  Society,  pages  109,  HI,  115. 

AMERICAN  REPRESENTATIVE  DEMOCRACY 

Representation  was  a  thing  unknown  in  the  ancient  democracies. 
In  those  the  mass  of  the  people  met  and  enacted  laws  (grammatically 
speaking)  in  the  first  person.  Simple  democracy  was  no  other  than 
the  common  hall  of  the  ancients.  It  signifies  the  form,  as  well  as  the 
public  principle  of  the  government.  As  these  democracies  increased 
in  iDopulation,  and  the  territory  extended,  the  simple  democratical 
form  became  unwieldly  and  impracticable;  and  as  the  system  of 
representation  was  not  known,  the  consequence  was  they  either 
degenerated  convulsively  into  monarchies,  or  became  absorbed  into 
such  as  then  existed. 

It  is  possible  that  an  individual  may  lay  down  a  system  of  prin- 
ciples, on  which  government  may  be  constitutionally  established  to 
any  extent  of  territory.  This  is  no  more  than  an  operation  of  the 
mind,  acting  by  its  own  powers.  But  the  practice  upon  those  prin- 
ciples as  applying  to  the  various  and  numerous  circumstances  of  a 
nation  *  *  *  *  requires  a  knowledge  of  a  different  kind,  and  which 
can  be  had  only  from  the  different  parts  of  society.  Referring,  then 
to  the  original  simple  democracy,  it  affords  the  true  data  from  which 
government  on  a  large  scale  can  begin.  It  is  incapable  of  extension, 
not  from  its  principle,  but  from  the  inconvenience  of  its  form;  and 
monarchy  and  aristocracy  from  their  incapacity.  Retaining,  then, 
democracy  as  the  ground,  and  rejecting  the  corrupt  systems  of  mon- 
archy and  aristocracy,  the  representative  system  naturally  presents 
itself,  remedying  at  once  the  defects  of  the  simple  democracy  as  to 
form. 

Simple  democracy  was  society  governing  itself  without  the  aid  of 
secondary  means.  By  engrafting  representation  upon  democracy, 
we  arrive  at  a  system  of  government  capable  of  embracing  and  con- 
federating all  the  various  interests  and  every  extent  of  territory  and 
population.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  system  of  government 
capable  of  acting  over  such  an  extent  of  territory,  and  such  a  circle 
of  interests,  as  is  immediately  produced  by  the  operation  of  repre- 
sentation. It  adapts  itself  to  all  possible  cases.  It  is  preferable  to  a 
simple  democracy  even  in  small  territories.  Athens,  by  representa- 
tion, would  have  out-rivaled  her  own  democracy. 

That  which  is  called  government,  or  rather  that  which  we  ought 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS-A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    61 

to  conceive  government  to  be,  is  no  more  than  some  common  center, 
in  which  all  of  the  parts  of  society  unite.  This  can  not  be  accom- 
plished by  any  method  so  conducive  to  the  various  interests  of  the 
community,  as  by  the  representative  system.  It  concentrates  the 
knowledge  necessary  to  the  interests  of  the  parts,  and  of  the  whole. 
It  places  government  in  a  state  of  constant  maturity. 

THOMAS  PAINE. 
Rights  of  Man. 

THE  CRAZE  FOR  SOMETHING  NEW  AND 
THE  CONSEQUENCES 

In  the  craze  for  something  new  the  mind  of  unrest  discards  as 
useless  everything  that  is  old,  neglectful  of  the  truth  that  whatever  is 
old  has  come  through  experience  and  withstood  that  hardest  of  tests. 
The  joy  of  imagination  is  the  beauty  of  living.  It  should  be  cherished 
as  such,  but  it  is  not  a  function  of  government.  The  wisest  provision 
of  the  American  constitution  was  the  self-restraint  imposed  upon  the 
electorate,  by  itself. 

That  self-restriction  is  now  the  real  object  of  attack  from  those 
whose  minds  which  are  so  intemperate  politically  that  their  advocacy 
of  the  abolition  of  these  restrictions  is  proof  of  the  wisdom  of  their 
retention.  It  is  not  important  what  concrete  form  their  mental  atti- 
tude takes,  whether  it  is  in  the  recall  of  judges,  recall  of  judicial  de- 
cisions, initiative,  compulsory  legislative  referendum,  direct  nomina- 
tions or  anything  else.  It  is  the  state  of  mind  which  advocates  these 
concrete  things  that  requires  treatment.  That  state  of  mind  believes 
in  rushing  to  the  Legislature  for  the  enactment  of  statutes  to  cure 
evils  which  can  never  be  remedied  by  legislative  enactment.  In  its 
failure  to  succeed  through  legislation,  it  attacks  the  organic  law,  the 
constitution,  which  protects  the  individual  citizen  of  America  from 
aggression  from  every  direction,  on  the  part  of  the  government,  on  the 
part  of  the  people  or  on  the  part  of  another  individual.  No  constitu- 
tion can  restrain  its  disordered  aspiration.  It  would  cast  it  away  as  a 
wornout  garment  just  because  it  was  sick  of  it,  like  a  peevish  child. 
How  untrustworthy  is  such  a  mind  was  exhibited  at  Carnegie  Hall, 
when  I  heard  Mr.  Roosevelt  say  that  it  took  six  years  to  amend  the 
constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  when  he,  an  ex-governor,  ought 
to  know  that  it  takes  three,  yet  the  influence  of  his  argument  was  that 
his  audience  demanded  amendment,  and  that  quickly. 

Every  utterance  from  this  socialistic  side  is  a  demand  for  the 
amendment  or  abrogation  of  the  constitutions  of  state  and  nation, 
because  restrictions  are  irksome  to  its  passion.  Of  course  they  are 
irksome.  They  were  framed  to  be  irksome  to  all  impetuous  minds 
and  a  check  upon  half-thought  out  ideas. 

WM.  BARNES,  JR. 
Speech  at  Republican  Club, 
New  York,  May  16,  1912. 


62    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

WHAT  WISDOM  CREATES  FOLLY  MAY 
DESTROY 

For  after  all,  there  is  a  public  conscience  which  neither  flattery 
nor  self  interest  can  subdue.  And  the  salvation  of  that  public  con- 
science is  in  the  fact  that  its  innumerable  roots  reach  down  and  are 
sustained  and  invigorated  by  the  individual  character.  If  the  indi- 
vidual is  right  the  country  will  not  go  wrong. 

Relying  on  this  belief  I  submit  to  those  who  care  to  know  it,  my 
candid  disapproval  of  certain  methods  which  now  seem  widely 
favored.  I  do  not  believe  that  public  policies  should  change  like 
moving  pictures.  It  will  be  a  costly  and  hazardous  step  if  the  Ameri- 
can people  permanently  discard  the  safe  and  deliberate  methods  of 
government  for  the  changing  and  hysterical  attractions  of  pictorial 
statesmanship. 

No  policy  is  good  for  much  which  is  voted  on  every  day.  It 
would  be  as  wise  for  a  farmer  to  pull  his  crops  up  every  night  to  see 
how  they  get  along.  Nothing  will  do  well  unless  tended  and  given 
time  to  grow. 

It  has  taken  the  American  people  many  years  of  arduous,  bloody 
and  expensive  labor  to  reach  the  spot  where  they  now  stand.  They 
are  rich  and  great,  but  no  wealth  was  ever  so  expansive  and  no  power 
so  secure  that  those  who  gained  them  by  wisdom  and  toil  could  not 
destroy  them  by  idleness  and  folly.  The  exactions  of  virtue  are  many 
and  strict,  and  its  rewards  are  ample,  but  by  one  lapse  or  blunder  the 
fame  of  a  lifetime  will  fall  in  a  night.  You  may  raise  the  monuments 
of  your  industry  till  they  touch  the  skies:  the  flame  of  one  match 
will  lay  them  at  your  feet.  If  you  would  continue  your  power  you 
must  hold  fast  to  the  things  that  gave  it  to  you. 

HON.  FRANK  S.  BLACK. 
Before  The  Middlesex  Club, 
Boston,  April  30th,  1910. 


POLITICAL  LEADERS 

Notwithstanding  the  popular  cry  against  political  leaders,  the 
fact  remains  that  they  are  leaders  because  of  their  knowledge  of  polit- 
ical conditions,  their  knowledge  of  human  nature  and  their  ability  to 
think,  reason  and  arrive  at  correct  conclusions. 

They  are  leaders  for  these  reasons  and  for  the  further  reason  that 
they  know  how  to  make  friends  and  retain  them.  They  make  friends 
because  they  have  warm  hearts  and  real  red  blood.  They  make  friends 
by  helping  others  and  they  retain  friends  by  keeping  their  word  and 
being  loyal  to  their  friends  and  their  party. 

Not  only  this,  but  leaders  are  evolved;  they  cannot  be  made  by 
law.  They  can  only  be  made  by  the  common  consent  of  the  people 
and  their  political  associates.    A  man  becomes  a  leader  by  reason  of 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    63 

his  individuality,  his  talent,  his  energy,  his  sound  judgment  and  his 
common  sense  and  by  reason  of  his  ability  to  read  and  understand 
human  nature  and  correctly  guage  public  sentiment.  He  becomes  a 
leader  by  reason  of  his  acquaintances,  his  friendships,  his  qualities  of 
heart,  mind  and  character,  and  you  can  no  more  legislate  a  leader's 
friendships  away  from  him,  you  can  no  more  abolish  his  friendships 
and  influence  by  legislation,  than  you  can  legislate  one  of  the  planets 
out  of  the  heavens,  or  darken  the  sun  by  an  act  of  the  legislature. 

And  in  this  connection  I  want  to  say  that  when  a  man  starts  out 
to  rail  against  bosses,  it  is  a  sure  sign  that  he  has  the  boss  bee  buzzing 
busily  in  his  own  hat. 

Goethe  had  this  class  in  mind  when  he  said: 

Don't  be  disturbed  by  the  barking; 

Remain  in  your  places. 

The  barkers  eagerly  wish  for  your  seats, 

There  to  be  barked  at  themselves." 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 

Speech  at  Lyons,  Oct.  9,  1910. 

THOUGHTS  ON  GOVERNMENT 

Politicians  have  in  all  ages,  disputed  much  about  the  best  form  of 
government,  without  considering  that  each  different  form  may  pos- 
sibly be  the  best  in  some  cases,  and  the  worst  in  others. 

*  *     * 

To  take  the  term  in  its  strictest  sense,  there  never  existed,  and 
never  will  exist,  a  real  democracy  in  the  world.  It  is  contrary  to  the 
natural  order  of  things,  that  the  majority  of  a  people  should  be  the 
governors,  and  the  minority  the  governed.  It  is  not  to  be  conceived 
that  a  whole  people  should  remain  personally  assembled  to  manage 
the  affairs  of  the  public;  and  it  is  evident,  that  no  sooner  are  deputies 
or  representatives  appointed,  than  the  form  of  the  administration  is 
changed. 

It  may  be  laid  down  indeed  as  a  maxim,  that  when  the  functions 
of  government  are  divided  among  several  courts,  that  which  is  com- 
posed of  the  fewest  persons  will,  sooner  or  later,  acquire  the  greatest 
authority;  though  it  were  for  no  other  reason  than  the  facility  with 
which  it  is  calculated  to  expedite  affairs. 

*  *     * 

To  this  it  may  be  added  that  no  government  is  so  subject  to  civil 
wars  and  intestine  commotions  as  that  of  the  democratical  or  popular 
form;  because  no  other  tends  so  strongly  and  so  constantly  to  alter, 
nor  requires  so  much  vigilance  and  fortitude  to  preserve  it  from  alter- 
ation. 

The  more  a  numerous  people  are  collected  together,  the  less  can 
the  government  assume  over  the  sovereign;    the  chiefs  of  a  faction 


64    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

may  deliberate  as  securely  at  their  meetings,  as  the  prince  in  his 
council,  and  the  mob  are  as  readily  assembled  in  the  public  squares, 
as  the  troops  in  their  quarters.  It  is  the  advantage  of  a  tyrannical 
government,  therefore,  to  act  at  great  distances;  its  force  increasing 
with  the  distance,  like  that  of  a  lever,  by  the  assistance  of  a  proper 
center.  That  of  the  people,  on  the  contrary,  acts  only  by  being  con- 
centrated; it  evaporates  and  loses  itself  when  dilated,  even  as  gun- 
powder scattered  on  the  ground,  takes  fire  particle  by  particle,  and 

is  productive  of  no  effect. 

*  *     * 

Among  the  Greeks,  whatever  the  people  had  to  do,  they  did  it 
in  person;  they  were  perpetually  assembled  in  public.  They  inhab- 
ited a  mild  climate,  were  free  from  avarice,  their  slaves  managed  their 
domestic  business,  and  their  great  concern  was  liberty.  As  you  do  not 
possess  the  same  advantages,  how  can  you  expect  to  preserve  the  same 
privileges?  Your  climate  being  more  severe,  creates  more  wants; 
for  six  months  in  the  year  your  public  squares  are  too  wet  or  cold 
to  be  frequented;  your  hoarse  voices  cannot  make  themselves  heard 
in  the  open  air;  you  apply  yourselves  more  to  gain  than  to  liberty,  and 
are  less  afraid  of  slaverj'  than  poverty. 

*  *     * 

Did  there  exist  a  nation  of  gods,  their  government  would  doubt- 
less be  democratical;   it  is  too  perfect  a  form,  however,  for  mankind. 

ROUSSEAU. 
Social  Contract. 


A  LITTLE  SOUND  PHILOSOPHY 

Now,  lastly,  the  surplus  is  passing  into  a  new  class,  the  large 
business  speculator,  the  financier,  and  trust-man.  So  far  as  we  can 
yet  see,  this  class  is  justifying  itself  far  more  than  the  middle  class. 
In  fifty  years  the  middle  classes  have  not  given  as  much  to  endow 
education  as  the  millionaires  have  given  in  five  years.  A  man  with  a 
gigantic  income  cannot  spend  more  than  a  few  percent  of  it  on  him- 
self. He  must  use  it  for  large  public  enterprises  which  benefit  man- 
kind. To  put  it  in  another  form,  a  great  dealer  has  organized  a  method 
for  taxing  the  community  in  such  a  way  that  they  do  not  notice  it 
and  if  he  spends  the  tax  on  public  improvements  or  endowments — 
railways,  new  inventions,  or  universities — he  is  an  active  benefactor 
to  the  whole  community  He  sponges  up  the  surplus  which  would 
otherwise  be  frittered  away  in  ostentation  or  luxury,  and  drops  it 
where  it  is  a  permanent  benefit.  As  a  principle  we  may  hate  the 
trust-man  and  multi-millionaire,  but  he  may  be  a  lesser  curse  than 
the  extravagant  middle  or  lower-class  man.  War  is  hateful,  but  it 
may  be  a  lesser  curse  than  rotting  in  peace.  So  long  as  the  average 
man  shows  by  his  selfish  luxury  that  he  is  incapable  of  managing 
wealth,  so  long  the  private  taxer — who  prevents  some  of  the  waste — 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    65 

will  be  a  positive  blessing  to  the  community.  The  evolution  of  the 
great  money-manager  type  now  going  on  is  a  distinct  step  forward  in 
the  prevention  of  waste,  and  the  growth  of  a  better  system  of  expen- 
diture. A  million  pounds  a  year  scattered  over  a  hundred  thousand 
men  will  be  all  eaten  up  in  luxuries  or  lost  in  folly;  spread  among  a 
thousand  men  it  will  only  swell  their  wasteful  pride  of  life;  but  put 
it  in  the  hands  of  ten  men  who  have  worked  for  it,  and  they  will  spend 
most  of  it  in  useful  work  that  will  bear  fruit.  Until  the  education, 
moral  and  intellectual,  of  the  average  man  is  on  a  higher  plane,  it  will 
be  well  for  the  surplus  wealth  to  be  in  the  safer  hands  of  those  who 
have  proved  their  capacity  for  avoiding  waste.  The  evolution  of 
society  is  not  fitted  at  present  for  a  wealthy  middle  class,  or  a  pro- 
letariat domination. 

We  have  now  seen  in  many  directions  how  great  are  the  changes 
in  the  constitution  of  society,  which  are  brought  about  by  a  succession 
of  small  movements,  each  of  which  imperceptibly  bears  its  share  in 
the  change.  We  see  thus  how  carefully  small  tendencies  should  be 
watched;  and  we  learn  how  needless  and  often  how  futile  is  a  violent 
uprooting  of  institutions  instead  of  a  gradual  growth. 

Another  lesson  to  note  is  that  every  attempt  to  interfere  by 
legislation  in  the  natural  working  of  causes  is  more  likely  to  do  harm 
than  good.  The  long  lesson,  which  it  took  all  the  middle  ages  to 
teach,  was  that  legislative  interference  with  trade  always  did  harm; 
we  have  come  to  believe  that  in  a  half-hearted  way,  but  we  are 
still  perpetually  longing  to  tinker  society  by  interfering  \vith  natural 
cause  and  effect. 

W.  M.  FLINDERS  PETRIE. 

Janus,  in  Modern  Life,  pp.  62,  63,  64- 

NATIONS   WEARY   OF  VIOLENCE   ESTABLISH 
CONSTITUTIONS 

Every  day  men  of  genius  invented  improved  methods  of  life; 
cities  were  built,  lands  and  cattle  allotted  at  first  according  to  merit; 
hut  soon  the  discovery  of  gold  gave  all  power  to  the  wealthy;  men  would  not 
learn  how  little  was  needed  for  happiness;  they  therefore  sacrificed 
everything  for  power  and  eminence,  often  when  they  had  reached  the 
summit,  only  to  be  dashed  down;  let  men  thus  struggle  on  along  the 
path  of  ambition,  since  they  have  no  true  enjoyment,  being  really  the 
slaves  of  their  own  dependents. 

Thus  kings  were  overthrown,  and  the  rabble  scrambled  for  supreme 
power,  till  nations  weary  of  violence  established  laws  and  constitutions; 
then  fear  of  punishment  restrained  men,  as  injustice  generally  recoils 
on  the  wrongdoer,  and  if  he  escape  punishment,  he  cannot  escape  the 
terrors  of  conscience. 

LUCRETIUS. 

The  Nature  of  Things,  Written  in  56  B.  C. 


66    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

THE  RULE  OF  THE  PEOPLE 

A  government  is  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  people.  We  believe  that 
this  benefit  is  best  accomplished  by  popular  government,  because  in 
the  long  run  each  class  of  individuals  is  apt  to  secure  better  provision 
for  themselves  through  their  own  voice  in  government  than  through 
the  altruistic  interest  of  others,  however  intelligent  or  philanthropic. 
The  wisdom  of  ages  has  taught  that  no  government  can  exist  except 
in  accordance  with  laws  and  unless  the  people  under  it  either  obey 
the  laws  voluntarily  or  are  made  to  obey  them.  In  a  popular  gov- 
ernment the  laws  are  made  by  the  people — not  by  all  the  people — 
but  by  those  supposed  and  declared  to  be  competent  for  the  purpose, 
as  males  over  21  years  of  age,  and  not  by  all  of  these — but  by  a 
majority  of  them  only.  Now,  as  the  government  is  for  all  the  people, 
and  is  not  solely  for  a  majority  of  them,  the  majority  in  exercising 
control  either  directly  or  through  its  agents  is  bound  to  exercise  the 
power  for  the  benefit  of  the  minority  as  well  as  the  majority.  But  all 
have  recognized  that  the  majority  of  a  people,  unrestrained  by  law, 
when  aroused  and  without  the  sobering  effect  of  deliberation  and  dis- 
cussion, may  do  injustice  to  the  minority  or  to  the  individual  when  the 
selfish  interest  of  the  majority  prompts.  Hence  arises  the  necessity 
for  a  constitution  by  which  the  will  of  the  majority  shall  be  permitted 
to  guide  the  course  of  the  government  only  under  controlling  checks 
that  experience  has  shown  to  be  necessary  to  secure  the  minority  its 
share  of  the  benefit  to  the  whole  people  that  a  popular  government  is 
established  to  bestow.  A  popular  government  is  not  a  government 
of  a  majority,  by  a  majority,  for  a  majority  of  the  people.  It  is  a  gov- 
ernment of  the  whole  people,  by  a  majority  of  the  whole  people  under 
such  rules  and  checks  as  will  secure  a  wise,  just,  and  beneficent  gov- 
ernment for  all  the  people.  It  is  said  you  can  always  trust  the  people 
to  do  justice.  If  that  means  all  the  people  and  they  all  agree,  you  can. 
But  ordinarily  they  do  not  all  agree,  and  the  maxim  is  interpreted  to 
mean  that  you  can  always  trust  a  majority  of  the  people.  This  is 
not  invariably  true;  and  every  limitation  imposed  by  the  people  upon 
the  power  of  the  majority  in  their  constitutions  is  an  admission  that 
it  is  not  always  true.  No  honest,  clear-headed  man,  however  great 
a  lover  of  popular  government,  can  deny  that  the  unbridled  expression 
of  the  majority  of  a  community  converted  hastily  into  law  or  action 
would  sometimes  make  a  government  tyrannical  and  cruel.  Consti- 
tutions are  checks  upon  the  hasty  action  of  the  majority.  They  are 
the  self-imposed  restraints  of  a  whole  people  upon  a  majority  of  them 
to  secure  sober  action  and  a  respect  for  the  rights  of  the  minority, 
and  of  the  individual  in  his  relation  to  other  individuals,  and  in  his 
relation  to  the  whole  people  in  their  character  as  a  state  or  govern- 
ment. 

WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT. 

Special  Message  on  Arizona  Constitution. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    67 

ELECTION  OF  A  PRESIDENT  TO  TEST  THE 
CONSTITUTION 

If  ever  the  tranquillity  of  the  nation  is  to  be  disturbed  and  its 
liberties  endangered  by  a  struggle  for  power,  it  will  be  upon  the  very 
subject  of  the  choice  of  a  President.  This  is  the  question  that  is 
eventually  to  test  the  goodness  and  try  the  strength  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  if  we  shall  be  able  for  half  a  century  hereafter  to  continue 
to  elect  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Union  with  discretion,  modera- 
tion, and  integrity  we  shall  undoubtedly  stamp  the  highest  value  on 
our  national  character. 

CHANCELLOR  KENT. 
See  James  Ford  Rhodes'  Historical  Essays,  p.  219. 

FRANKLIN  FEARED  A  MONARCHY 

Sir,  there  are  two  passions  which  have  a  powerful  influence  on 
the  affairs  of  men.  These  are  ambition  and  avarice;  the  love  of 
power,  and  the  love  of  money.  Separately,  each  of  these  has  great 
force  in  prompting  men  to  action;  but  when  united  in  view  of  the 
same  object,  they  have  in  many  minds  the  most  violent  effects.  *  *  * 
And  of  what  kind  are  the  men  that  will  strive  for  this  profitable  pre- 
eminence, through  all  the  bustle  of  cabal,  the  heat  of  contention? 
The  infinite  abuse  of  parties,  tearing  to  pieces  the  best  of  characters? 
It  will  not  be  the  wise,  and  moderate,  the  lovers  of  peace  and  good 
order,  the  men  fittest  for  the  trust.  It  will  be  the  bold  and  the  violent, 
the  men  of  strong  passions  and  indefatigable  activity  in  their  selfish 
pursuits.  These  will  thrust  themselves  into  your  government,  and  be 
your  rulers.     *  *  * 

There  is  scarce  a  king  in  an  hundred,  who  would  not,  if  he  could, 
follow  the  example  of  Pharaoh,  get  first  all  the  people's  money,  then  all 
their  lands,  and  then  make  them  and  their  children  servants  forever. 

It  will  be  said,  that  we  do  not  propose  to  have  kings.  I  know  it; 
but  there  is  a  natural  inclination  in  mankind  to  kingly  government. 
It  sometimes  relieves  them  from  aristocratic  domination.  They  had 
rather  have  one  tyrant  than  five  hundred.  It  gives  more  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  equality  among  citizens;  and  that  they  like.  I  am  ap- 
prehensive, therefore,  perhaps  too  apprehensive,  that  the  government 
of  these  states  may  in  future  end  in  a  monarchy.  But  this  catastrophy 
I  think  may  be  delayed,  if  in  our  proposed  system  we  do  not  sow  the 
seeds  of  contention,  faction  and  tumult,  by  making  our  positions  of 
honor  places  of  profit. 

DR.  BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN. 
Madison's  Journal  of  Constitutional 
Convention,  pages  92-3. 


68    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

WASHINGTON  FEARED  A  DICTATOR  ON 
THE  RUINS  OF  PUBLIC  LIBERTY 

Towards  the  preservation  of  your  government  and  the  perma- 
nency of  your  present  happy  estate,  it  is  requisite,  not  only  that  you 
speedily  discountenance  irregular  oppositions  to  its  acknowledged 
authority,  but  also  that  you  resist  with  care  the  spirit  of  innovation 
upon  its  principles,  however  specious  the  pretexts.  One  method  of 
assault  may  be  to  effect,  in  the  forms  of  the  constitution,  alterations 
which  will  impair  the  energy  of  the  system;  and  thus  to  undermine 
what  cannot  be  directly  overthrown.  In  all  the  changes  to  which  you 
may  be  invited,  remember  that  time  and  habit  are  at  least  as  necessary 
to  fix  the  true  character  of  governments,  as  of  other  human  institu- 
tions; that  experience  is  the  surest  standard,  by  which  to  test  the  real 
tendency  of  the  existing  constitution  of  a  country;  that  facility  in 
changes,  upon  the  credit  of  mere  hypothesis  and  opinion,  exposes  to 
perpetual  change,  from  the  endless  variety  of  hypothesis  and  opinion. 

*     *     * 

The  alternate  domination  of  one  faction  over  another,  sharpened 
by  the  spirit  of  revenge,  natural  to  party  dissention,  which,  in  different 
ages  and  countries,  has  perpetrated  the  most  horrid  enormities,  is 
itself  a  frightful  despotism.  But  this  leads,  at  length,  to  a  more  formal 
and  permanent  despotism.  The  disorders  and  miseries,  which  result, 
gradually  incline  the  minds  of  men  to  seek  security  and  repose  in  the 
absolute  power  of  an  individual;  and  sooner  or  later,  the  chief  of 
some  prevailing  faction,  more  able  or  more  fortunate  than  his  com- 
petitors, turns  this  disposition  to  the  purposes  of  his  own  elevation  on 
the  ruins  of  public  liberty. 

GEORGE  WASHINGTON, 
From  Farewell  Address 

LINCOLN  SPOKE  WITH  THE  SPIRIT  OF 
PROPHECY 

Many  great  and  good  men,  sufficiently  qualified  for  any  task  they 
should  undertake,  may  ever  be  found,  whose  ambition  would  aspire  to 
nothing  beyond  a  seat  in  Congress,  a  gubernatorial  or  a  presidential 
chair.  But  such  belong  not  to  the  family  of  the  Hon  or  the  brood  of  the 
eagle.  What?  Think  you  these  places  would  satisfy  an  Alexander, 
a  Caesar,  or  a  Napoleon?  Never!  Towering  genius  disdains  a  beaten 
path.  It  seeks  regions  hitherto  unexplored.  It  sees  no  distinction 
in  adding  story  to  story  upon  the  monuments  of  fame  erected  to  the 
memory  of  others.  It  denier  that  it  is  glory  enough  to  serve  under  any 
chief.  It  scorns  to  tread  in  the  footsteps  of  any  predecessor,  however 
illustrious.  It  thirsts  and  burns  for  distinction;  and,  if  possible,  it 
will  have  it,  whether  at  the  expense  of  emancipating  slaves  or  enslav- 
ing free  men.    Is  it  unreasonable,  then,  to  expect  that  some  men,  pos- 


BETTS-TIOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    69 

sessed  of  the  loftiest  genius,  coupled  with  ambition  sufficient  to  push 
it  to  its  utmost  stretch,  will  at  some  time  spring  up  among  us?  And 
when  such  a  one  does,  it  will  require  the  people  to  be  united  with  each 
other,  attached  to  the  government  and  laws,  and  generally  intelligent, 
to  successfully  flustrate  his  design. 

Distinction  will  be  his  paramount  object,  and  although  he  would 
as  willingly,  perhaps  more  so,  acquire  it  by  doing  good  as  harm,  yet 
that  opportunity  being  passed,  and  nothing  left  to  be  done  in  the  way 
of  building  up,  he  would  sit  down  boldly  to  the  task  of  pulling  down. 
Here,  then,  is  a  probable  case,  highly  dangerous,  and  such  a  one  as 
could  not  well  have  existed  heretofore. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 
Speech  at  Springfield,  1837. 

THE  POLITICAL  VALUE  OF  HISTORY 

The  immensely  increased  prominence  in  political  life  of  ephemeral 
influences,  and  especially  of  the  influence  of  a  daily  press;  the  immense 
multiplication  of  elections,  which  intensifies  party  conflicts,  all  tend 
to  concentrate  our  thoughts  more  and  more  upon  an  immediate  issue. 
They  narrow  the  range  of  our  vision,  and  make  us  somewhat  insensible 
to  distant  consequences  and  remote  contingencies.  It  is  not  easy, 
in  the  heat  and  passion  of  modern  political  life,  to  look  beyond  a  par- 
liament or  an  election,  beyond  the  interest  of  a  party  or  the  triumph 
of  an  hour.  Yet  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  ultimate,  dis- 
tant, and  perhaps  indirect  consequences  of  political  measures  are  often 
far  more  important  than  their  immediate  fruits,  and  that  in  the  pros- 
perity of  nations  a  large  amount  of  continuity  in  politics  and  the 
gradual  formation  of  political  habits  are  of  transcendent  importance. 
Histor}'  is  never  more  valua})le  than  when  it  enables  us,  standing  as  on 
a  height,  to  look  beyond  the  smoke  and  turmoil  of  our  petty  quarrels, 
and  to  detect  in  the  slow  developments  of  the  past  the  great  permanent 
forces  that  are  steadily  bearing  nations  onward  to  improvement  or 
decay. 

The  strongest  of  these  forces  are  the  moral  ones.  Mistakes  in 
statesmanship,  military  triumphs  or  disasters,  no  doubt  affect  mater- 
ially the  prosperity  of  nations,  but  their  permanent  political  well- 
being  is  essentially  the  outcome  of  their  moral  state.  Its  foundation 
is  laid  in  pure  domestic  life,  in  commercial  integrity,  in  a  high  standard 
of  moral  worth  and  of  public  spirit;  in  simple  habits,  in  courage,  up- 
rightness, and  self  sacrifice,  in  a  certain  soundriess  and  moderation  of 
judgment,  which  springs  quite  as  much  froin  character  as  from  intellect. 
If  you  would  form  a  wise  judgment  of  the  future  of  a  nation,  observe 
carefully  whether  these  qualities  are  increasing  or  decaying.  Observe 
especially  what  qualities  count  for  most  in  public  life.  Is  character 
becoming  of  greater  or  less  importance?  Are  the  men  who  obtain  the 
highest  posts  in  the  nation  men  of  whom  in  private  life  and  irrespective 
of  party  competent  judges  speak  with  genuine  respect?    Are  they  men 


70    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

of  sincere  convictions,  sound  judgment,  consistent  lives,  indisputable  in- 
tegrity, or  are  they  men  who  have  won  their  positions  by  the  arts  of 
a  demagogue  or  an  intriguer;  men  of  nimble  tongues  and  not  earnest  be- 
liefs— skilful,  above  all  things,  in  spreading  their  sails  to  each  passing 
breeze  of  popularity?  Such  considerations  as  these  are  apt  to  be  for- 
gotten in  the  fierce  excitement  of  a  party  contest;  b^d  if  history  has  any 
meaning,  it  is  such  considerations  that  affect  most  vitally  the  perma- 
nent well-being  of  communities,  and  it  is  by  observing  this  moral  cur- 
rent that  you  can  best  cast  the  horoscope  of  a  nation. 

WILLIAM  EDWARD  HARTPOLE  LECKY. 
Historical  and  Political  Essays,  pp.  Jfi,  1^1, 1^.2. 

CONCLUSION 

In  conclusion,  attention  should  be  directed  to  this  vivid  picture, 
drawn  by  the  pen  of  one  of  the  most  brilliant  and  accurate  writers  in 
all  history,  of  the  conditions  which  presage  the  decline  and  decay  of  a 
nation.  The  conditions  as  described  have  a  special  application  to 
this  country  at  the  present  time  as  a  result  of  the  revival  of  the  im- 
practical and  primitive  system  of  a  pure  democracy.  "Insincerity, 
pretense,  intrigue,  and  nimble  tongued  demagogues,  spreading  sails  to 
each  passing  breeze"  are  the  order  of  the  day.  This  enables  the 
student  of  history  to  "cast  the  horoscope"  of  the  present  drift  of  this 
nation.  Pure  democracy  is  the  promoter  of  strife,  contention  and  cor- 
ruption. It  makes  conditions  which  lead  self-respecting  men  of  char- 
acter and  standing  and  the  ablest  and  best  statesmen  to  retire  from 
public  life  because  they  do  not  care  to  enter  a  "rough  and  tumble" 
contest  against  money,  venality  and  ignorance  where  prize  ring  methods 
become  the  highest  ideals.  It  creates  conditions  in  which  demagogues 
spring  up,  multiply  and  flourish  hke  "mushrooms  on  a  rich  and  rotten 
bed  of  earth."  It  is  a  form  of  government,  which  by  its  attempted 
"rough  and  tumble"  mass  action,  was  the  rock  on  which  all  of  the 
ancient  republics  were  wrecked. 

The  Ancients  had  never  discovered  a  workable  system  of  govern- 
ment between  the  extremes  of  a  pure  democracy  which  was  a  failure,  and 
an  aristocracy  or  a  monarchy,  both  of  which  curtailed  individual 
liberty  and  denied  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people  a  controlling  voice 
in  the  affairs  of  their  government. 

The  statesmen  who  founded  the  American  republic  were  the  first 
practical  exponents  and  founders  of  a  free  representative  democracy, 
which  has  proved  its  adaptability  to  any  and  every  extent  of  territory 
and  population,  and  which  at  the  same  time,  guards  and  protects 
individual  liberty  and  gives  the  people  a  controlling  voice  in  the  affairs 
of  their  government. 

I  have  greater  confidence  in  the  wisdom  of  the  fathers  who 
founded  this  free  republic  than  I  have  in  the  noise  of  their  hysterical 
sons  who  are  trying  to  destroy  it. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    71 

I  am  opposed  to  the  initiative,  the  referendum  and  the  recall; 
these  political  fallacies  are  older  than  civilization  and  were  conceived 
in  ignorance  of  the  science  of  government  and  born  in  the  throes  of 
hysteria  and  tumult. 

I  am  opposed  to  a  pure  democracy,  because,  in  the  last  analysis, 
it  means  democratic  socialism  and  government  by  collective  ignorance. 

I  am  in  favor  of  the  American  representative  democracy,  because 
it  means  popular  rule  by  selected  intelligence,  through  the  chosen 
representatives  of  the  people. 

I  believe  that  a  representative  democracy  is  the  most  scientific 
and  beneficent  government  ever  instituted  among  men  when  founded 
upon  Madison's  law  of  representation: 

"The  representation  should  be  large  enough  to  guard  against 
the  cabals  of  the  few  and  small  enough  to  guard  against  the  confusion 
of  the  multitude." 

This  country  is  facing  the  greatest  crisis  since  the  civil  war.  We 
are  on  the  eve  of  a  political  revolution.  The  fundamental  principles 
of  our  government  and  the  stability  of  our  institutions  are  threatened 
by  the  wanton  attacks  of  designing  and  ambitious  demagogues.  It  is 
just  as  important  that  every  patriotic  citizen  should  now  spring  to 
the  defense  of  our  representative  institutions  as  it  was  for  them  to 
rush  to  the  defense  of  the  country  when  the  Union  was  attacked  by 
secession  and  treason.  The  treason  of  the  present  is  as  dangerous  as 
the  treason  of  the  past.  It  is  not  as  apparent  to  the  average  citizen 
but  it  is  just  as  apparent  to  the  student  of  history.  The  time  has  come 
for  action.  The  time  has  come  when  every  patriotic  citizen  should 
study  the  questions  of  the  hour  and  prepare  for  the  conflict. 

In  the  present  crisis,  it  will  require  all  the  intelligence,  the  pa- 
tience and  the  wisdom  of  the  American  people,  together  with  the 
highest  statesmanship  of  our  country,  to  solve  the  great  problem 
which  now  confronts  us.  Government  founded  on  law,  order,  sta- 
bility and  progress  will  be  supported  by  every  patriot  but  government 
by  hysteria,  tumult  and  anarchy  will  be  supported  by  every  demagogue 
and  traitor. 

The  demand  of  the  hour  is: 
"God  give  us  men!    a  time  like  this  demands 
Strong  minds,  great  hearts,  true  faith  and  ready  hands; 
Men  whom  the  lust  of  office  does  not  kill; 
Men  whom  the  spoils  of  office  cannot  buy; 
Men  who  possess  opinions  and  a  will; 
Men  who  have  honor, — men  who  will  not  lie; 
Men  who  can  stand  before  a  Demagogue, 
And  damn  his  treacherous  flatteries  without  winking! 
Tall  men,  sun-crowned,  who  live  above  the  fog 
In  pubhc  duty  and  in  private  thinking." 


72    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

PARTY  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTY  ORGAN- 
IZATION 

The  political  parties  which  I  style  great  are  those  which  cling  to  principles  more 
than  to  their  consequences;  to  general,  and  not  to  special  cases;  to  ideas,  and  not 
to  men.  These  parties  are  usually  distinguished  by  a  noble  character,  by  more 
generous  passions,  more  genuine  convictions,  and  a  more  bold  and  open  conduct 
than  the  others. 

Minor  parties  are,  on  the  other  hand,  generally  deficient  in  political  faith.     As 
they  are  not  sustained  or  dignified  by  a  lofty  purpose,  they  ostensibly  display  the 
egotism  of  their  character  in  their  actions.    They  glow  with  a  factious  zeal;  their  lan- 
guage is  vehement  but  their  conduct  is  timid  and  irresolute.    The  means  they  employ 
are  as  wretched  as  the  end  at  which  they  aim. — Detocqueville  Democracy  in  America. 
I  believe  in  party  government  and  party  organization.    Without 
cohesion  and  concentration  of  energy  and  ability  there  can  be   no 
great  achievements.     In  a  republic  Hke  ours — the  only  instrumen- 
tality, the  only  agency  through  which  the  government  can  be  admin- 
istered, is  through  the  agency  of  a  political  party.     Burke  tells  us  that 
"A  poHtical  party  is  a  body  of  men  united  for  pro- 
moting by  their  j  oint  endeavors  the  national  interest  upon 
some  particular  principles  in  which  they  are  all  agreed." 
And  then  he  says: 

"It  is  the  business  of  the  speculative  philosopher  to 
mark  the  proper  ends  of  government.  It  is  the  business 
of  the  politician,  who  is  the  philosopher  in  action,  to  find 
out  proper  means  toward  those  ends,  and  to  employ 
them  with  effect." 
The  New  York  Times,  on  May  16,  1908,  contained  an  editorial 
from  which  I  quote  the  following: 

"It  may  be  said  that  the  expectation  of  office  is  not 
the  noblest  motive  of  political  action,  but  a  part}^  policy 
that  does  not  contemplate  the  raising  of  the  leading 
men  of  the  party  to  places  of  honor  and  influence  is 
senseless  and  without  any  reason  for  existence. 

"Parties  wither  away  when  the  distinction  and 
the  honors  of  public  life  are  put  beyond  the  reach  of 
their  men  of  character,  ability  and  ambition.  The  hope 
of  such  distinction  is  a  stimulus,  not  only  to  party  zeal 
and  loyalty,  but  to  individual  effort  and  development. 
It  produces  great  men." 
No  greater  crystalization  and  condensation  of  true  political 
philosophy  was  ever  contained  in  fewer  words. 

I  am  a  partisan.  The  neuter  gender  is  as  unpopular  and  unpro- 
ductive in  politics  as  in  nature.  Neutrality  is  a  negative,  denatured 
force,  which  always  spells  failure.  Partisanship  is  vitalized  energy. 
It  is  the  mainspring  of  action,  ambition  and  achievement.  I  want 
to  say  a  word  right  here  in  regard  to  the  much  abused  political  or- 
ganizations, which  are  the  modern  outgrowth  of  political  evolution. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    73 

Professor  Ford,  of  Princeton  University,  speaking  of  the  changed 
political  conditions  and  the  evolution  and  growth  and  strength  and 
power  of  political  organizations  says: 

"Nowhere  else  in  the  world,  at  any  period,  has 
party  organization  had  to  cope  with  such  enormous 
tasks  as  in  this  country,  and  its  efficiency  in  deahng  with 
them  is  the  true  glory  of  our  political  system. 

"This  conclusion  may  be  distasteful,  since  it  is  the 
habit  of  the  times  to  pursue  public  men  with  calumny 
and  detraction;  but  it  follows,  that  when  history  comes 
to   reckon  the   achievements  of  our  age,  great   party 
managers  will   receive  an  appreciation   very  different 
from   what  is   now   accorded  to   them." — Ford's   Rise 
and  Growth  of  American  Pohtics  (page  310.) 
The  great  mass  of  the  rank  and  file  of  all  parties  do  not  aspire  to 
public  office.    They  are  occupied  with  their  own  personal  and  private 
business,  but  they  are  true  and  loyal  to  their  party  because  they  be- 
lieve in  its  principles  and  policies  and  because  they  admire  its  leading 
statesmen,  love  its  traditions  and  take  a  patriotic  pride  in  its  record 
and   achievements.      They  will  sometimes  become  temporarily   in- 
fatuated with  a  certain  man  whom  they  have  elected  to  office,  but  as 
soon  as  they  discover  he  is  exploiting  his  own  personal  fortunes  at  the 
expense  of  the  party,  their  infatuation  fades  away  and  they  return 
to  their  first  love — to  their  party — and  they  continue  to  remain  true 
and  loyal  to  it. 

Loyalty  is  the  corner  stone  of  character.  It  is  the  subUme  rock 
upon  which  all  other  virtues  rest.  Remove  it,  and  all  other  virtues 
decline  and  die  in  weeds  and  dust. 

He  who  is  true  and  loyal  to  his  friends,  his  party,  his  principles 
and  his  ideals,  is  a  good  and  stable  citizen,  and  it  is  upon  the  shoulders 
of  such  citizens  that  the  Republic  must  rest,  and  it  is  upon  their 
reliability  and  solidity  of  character  that  the  stability  and  perpetuity 
of  the  Republic  itself  depends. 

This  Republic,  if  it  is  to  endure,  must  have  something  more  sub- 
stantial and  secure  to  rest  upon  than  the  ever  changing  political 
weather  cocks,  who  shift  with  every  breeze,  like  willows  in  the  wind. 
I  agree  with  former  Governor  Black  when  he  says: 
"The  sound  of  water  does  not  necessarily  mean  the  ocean." 
And  notwithstanding  the  cackle  of  the  mugwumps  and  the  noise 
of  the  demagogues,  the  political  wrecks — the  disloyal  wrecks,  strewn 
along  the  political  highway,  from  Greeley  down  to  date,  bear  eloquent 
and  conclusive  testimony  to  the  fact  that  in  this  moral,  this  civilized, 
this  enlightened  age,  party  treason  has  not  yet  become  a  virtue  and 
party  loyalty  has  not  yet  become  a  crime,  and  they  never  will  become 
so,  as  long  as  reason  is  the  torch  that  lights  and  patriotism  is  the  mo- 
tive that  moves  mankind  to  political  action. 

CHARLES  H.  BETTS. 
Speech  in  Baptist  Church,  at  Lyons,  Oct.  9,  1910. 


LAWS   RELATIVE   TO   EMPLOYER'S   LIABIL- 
ITY AND  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION* 

It  will  be  impossible  to  give  this  subject  any  thing  like  adequate 
treatment  in  the  space  at  my  disposal.  The  relations  of  employers  and 
employes  under  our  modern  industrial  development  have  become  one 
of  the  most  complex,  important  and  difficult  problems  with  which  we 
have  to  deal. 

When  industries  were  small  and  carried  on  by  individuals,  and 
the  relations  of  employer  and  employe  were  more  intimate  and  per- 
sonal, accidents  were  rare  and  the  question  of  employer's  liability  was  a 
simple  matter.  Under  the  Common  Law  of  England  and  the  United 
States,  the  legal  relations  of  the  employer  and  the  employe,  up  to  1837, 
did  not  differ  in  anyway  from  the  legal  relations  of  strangers,  and  there 
were  no  special  rules  as  to  the  employer's  liability.  If  "A"  was  hurt 
by  "B's"  neglect,  "B"  was  bound  to  compensate  "A,"  whether  "A" 
was  an  employe  or  not.  Therefore,  the  relations  of  employer  and  em- 
ploye were  the  relations  existing  between  all  other  persons. 

This  was  the  rule  of  the  Common  Law  up  to  1837,  but  since  that 
time  a  great  change  has  taken  place.  The  rapidly  increasing  indus- 
trial development  of  the  modern  world  has  given  rise  to  large  business 
institutions  and  corporations,  to  concentration  of  capital,  energy  and 
ability,  and  to  the  carrying  on  of  large  enterprises  and  manufacturing 
establishments,  which  have  entirely  changed  the  relations  of  employer 
and  employe  by  the  introduction  of  machinery  and  other  appliances 
used  in  manufacturing  and  other  industries. 

Therefore,  under  our  modern  industrial  system,  there  has  grown 
up  what  is  called  "extra-hazardous"  employment.  That  is  to  say, 
there  are  industries  in  which  employes  are  at  work  with  certain  kinds 
of  machinery  and  appliances,  which  render  their  operation  more  or 
less  dangerous.  Owing  to  this  fact  the  old  rules  of  the  Common  Law 
were  adapted  to  new  conditions  and  in  some  instances  were  changed  by 
the  Courts  and  new  rules  were  laid  down  governing  the  relations 
between  employer  and  employe. 

Under  the  Common  Law  rules,  as  modified  by  the  courts  and  as 


♦Substance  of  an  address  delivered  by  Charles  H.  Betts  before  a  meeting  of  the  Western  New 
York  Publishers'  Association  at  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  April  20,  1912. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTEES— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION    75 

they  have  existed  for  a  long  time  and  as  they  now  exist,  the  employer's 
duty  to  his  employe  is  defined  to  be  reasonable  care  for  the  safety  of 
his  employe  while  he  is  performing  his  work.  This  duty  includes  the 
following: 

First, — The  duty  to  provide  a  reasonably  safe  place  to  work. 

Second, — The  duty  to  provide  reasonably  safe  tools  and  appli- 
ances. 

Third, — The  duty  of  being  reasonably  careful  in  hiring  agents, 
and  servants,  fit  for  the  work  they  are  to  do. 

Fourth, — The  duty  of  providing  suitable  rules  for  carrying  on  the 
work. 

Under  the  present  Common  Law  rules,  as  established  or  construed 
by  the  courts,  if  an  employe  is  injured  by  the  failure  in  any  of  these 
duties  by  the  employer,  the  employe  may  recover  full  compensation 
for  his  injury,  the  amount  to  be  determined  by  jury  trial  in  an  action 
at  law.  The  right  of  action  is  here  based  on  the  employer's  negligence 
or  fault.  This  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Common  Law,  as 
applied  to  injuries  to  employes,  both  in  England  and  America,  brought 
down  from  1837  and  now  in  force  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

There  have  been,  however,  some  modifications  of  this  fundamen- 
tal principle.  The  employer  has  certain  defenses  and  may  invoke 
certain  rules  as  a  bar  to  an  action  at  law  by  an  injured  employe,  which 
are  very  important  and  which  constitute  the  court's  modification  of 
principle  above  stated  and  are  therefore  additions  to  the  Common 
Law  and  have  become  what  is  known  as  court-made  laws.  Among 
this  class  of  laws  are  the  following: — 

First;  Contributory  Negligence.  If  an  employe  who  is  injured 
has  failed  to  use  reasonable  care  himself  and  through  such  negligence 
becomes  injured,  he  can  not  recover  damages  from  his  employer. 
The  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  employe  to  show  freedom  from 
negligence  in  order  to  make  out  his  case.  The  rule  is  that  he  must 
come  into  court  with  "clean  hands";   that  is,  free  from  fault. 

Second;  Fellow  Servant  Rule.  If  an  employe  be  injured  by  the 
neghgence  of  a  fellow  servant,  that  act  will  bar  his  recovery  against 
the  employer  at  Common  Law. 

Third;  Assumption  of  Risk.  This  important  defense  which  an 
employer  has  under  the  Common  Law  is  the  assumption  of  risk  by 
the  employe.  An  employe  entering  employment  is  held  to  assume  and 
consent  to  the  ordinary  and  obvious  risks  incident  to  the  employment, 
and  if  injured  thereby  can  not  recover  from  his  employer  for  the  or- 


76    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIEITED  DISCUSSION 

dinary  risk  of  the  occupation.  Neither  can  he  recover  for  the  em- 
ployer's neglect  or  violation  of  his  duties,  if  the  employe  knew  of  such 
neglect  or  violation. 

This  Common  Law  system  of  employer's  liability  developed  along 
the  same  lines,  both  in  England  and  the  United  States,  up  to  the  time 
that  the  new  element  in  the  relations  between  employer  and  employe 
was  injected  into  the  industrial  world  by  the  invention  and  use  of 
modern  machinery. 

This  Common  Law  system,  as  it  relates  to  employer's  liability, 
has  been  changed  in  this  state  by  legislation;  first,  by  statutes  which 
place  new  duties  upon  the  employer;  second,  by  statutes  which  in- 
crease the  rights  of  the  working  man. 

The  labor  law  of  1897  in  this  state  prescribed  certain  standards 
or  methods  of  safeguarding  work  in  certain  employments,  to  which 
an  employer  must  conform,  and  gave  the  Department  of  Labor  power 
to  compel  compliance  with  that  law. 

In  1902,  an  employer's  liability  act  was  passed,  designed  to 
increase  the  rights  of  the  working  man.  This  law  did  not  work  satis- 
factorily and  the  Wainwright  Commission  appointed  by  the  legisla- 
ture in  1910,  in  a  very  exhaustive  and  able  report  upon  this  whole 
subject,  speaking  of  the  law,  says: 

"It  is  probably  a  correct  statement  that  in  more 
than  90%  of  the  cases  in  which  recovery  would  be  pos- 
sible under  the  act,  it  would  be  equally  possible  at  Com- 
mon Law,  though  this  estimate  is  not  susceptible  of 
exact  proof." 

The  Commission  then  states  that  this  law  was  modelled  after  the 
Enghsh  act  of  1880. 

After  these  enactments  the  next  act  passed  in  response  to  general 
agitation  was  what  is  known  as  the  Barnes  Act,  and  it  is  Chapter  657 
of  the  Laws  of  1906. 

Section  42-a  of  the  Railroad  Law,  as  added  by  this  act,  contains 
a  provision  that  if  an  employe  in  the  service  of  any  railroad  is  injured 
by  any  defect  in  the  ways,  rules,  machinery,  plant,  tools,  etc.,  of  the 
employer,  when  such  defect  could  have  been  discovered  by  proper  in- 
spection, the  employer  shall  be  deemed  to  have  had  knowledge  of  the 
facts  and  further  that  the  fact  of  the  defect  shall  be  prima  fade  evi- 
dence of  the  neghgence  of  the  employer.  This  act  also  modified  the 
fellow  servant  rule  as  applied  to  railroads. 

The  act  did  not,  however,  bring  the  desired  relief  to  the  employe 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    77 

which  was  contemplated,  and  the  agitation  continued  for  a  more 
liberal  employer's  liability  law,  one  that  would  be  more  favorable  to 
the  employe. 

One  reason  for  this  continued  agitation  is  the  fact  that  in  the 
trials  of  cases  for  accident,  it  was  discovered  that  the  injured  employe 
hardly  ever  received  a  just  proportion  of  the  money  actually  paid  by 
the  employer  for  damages.  As  soon  as  this  legislation  was  enacted, 
every  time  an  accident  occured  where  a  corporation  or  a  manufacturer 
was  involved,  there  was  usually  a  lawyer  immediately  on  the  ground 
who  interviewed  the  injured  party  as  soon  as  the  doctor — and  some- 
times sooner  and  secured  from  him  a  contract  to  take  the  case  against 
the  corporation,  or  the  manufacturer,  upon  a  speculative  basis.  This 
large  and  ever  increasing  class  of  lawyers  is  known  as  "ambulance 
chasers,"  and  it  was  discovered  that  the  employer's  liability  act, 
instead  of  actually  giving  adequate  relief  or  benefit  to  the  employe, 
in  many  cases  enriched  the  lawyer,  who  received  more  than  his  just 
due  of  the  money  paid  by  the  employer  to  his  injured  employe. 

In  addition  to  this  it  was  discovered  that  the  bringing  of  such 
actions  always  created  friction  and  resulted  in  strained  relations  be- 
tween the  employer  and  the  employe.  About  the  only  person  bene- 
fited in  the  final  result  was  the  ambulance  chasing  lawyer. 

This  situation  led  to  more  agitation  and  a  serious  attempt  to  find 
some  solution  of  the  problem  which  would  be  fair  and  satisfactory  both 
to  the  employer  and  the  employe.  As  a  result  of  this  agitation  a 
commission  was  appointed  in  this  state  under  a  bill  introduced  and 
passed  by  Assemblyman  Cyrus  W.  Phillips,  known  as  the  Wainwright 
Commission,  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  whole  subject  of 
employer's  liability  legislation  in  this  and  other  countries  with  the 
view  of  trying  to  frame  legislation  which  would  more  justly  and  ade- 
quately meet  the  situation.  This  commission  conducted  one  of  the 
most  thorough,  intelligent  and  exhaustive  examinations  of  the  ques- 
tion which  has  ever  been  conducted  in  this  or  any  other  country. 
Some  of  the  information  which  I  am  presenting  is  drawn  from  that  re- 
port, and  I  want  to  make  acknowledgment  of  my  obligation  to  this 
commission  for  many  of  the  facts  herein  set  forth. 

When  this  commission  had  completed  its  investigation  a  bill  was 
framed,  introduced  and  passed  in  the  New  York  State  legislature, 
known  as  the  Workman's  Compensation  Act  In  fact,  there  were  two 
such  bills  framed  and  passed,  one  was  compulsory,  the  other  volun- 
tary.   It  was  beUeved  by  the  commission  that  the  voluntary  act  would 


78    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

meet  the  situation  because  it  was  thought  it  would  be  generally  taken 
advantage  of  and  make  the  compulsory  act  unnecessary,  and  besides 
there  was  doubt  about  the  constitutionality  of  the  last  mentioned  act. 
In  its  hope  that  the  voluntary  act  would  be  taken  advantage  of  by  both 
sides,  the  commission  was  mistaken  and  was  greatly  disappointed. 
I  am  informed  that  there  were  practically  no  voluntary  contracts  made 
between  employer  and  employe  and  that  this  provision  of  the  act, 
though  desirable  in  principle,  has  become  a  dead  letter  on  the  statute 
books  because  of  the  many  and  complicated  details  provided  to  carry 
it  into  effect. 

The  Workman's  Compulsory  Compensation  Act  was  declared 
unconstitutional  by  the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals  in  a  learned 
and  exhaustive  opinion,  on  the  ground  that  it  provided  for  the  taking 
of  the  employer's  property  without  "due  process  of  law,"  and  thereby 
violated  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

This  decision  was  rendered  in  what  is  known  as  the  case  of  Ives 
V.  South  Buffalo  Railroad  Company,  201  N.  Y.,  271. 
\j  This  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  has  been  vigorously  crit- 

icised and  especially  by  former  President  Theodore  Roosevelt,  who 
has  repeatedly  made  violent  attacks  upon  the  Court  of  Appeals  of 
this  state  because  of  the  decision  rendered  in  this  case.  In  his  criti- 
cism of  the  court  Col.  Roosevelt  does  not  seem  to  take  into  considera- 
tion that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  court  to  render  decisions  in  accor- 
dance with  the  latest  ideas  of  political  agitators,  or  in  harmony  with 
public  sentiment,  but  it  is  the  sworn  duty  of  the  court  to  decide  such 
cases  in  harmony  with  the  constitution. 

Whenever  the  constitutionality  of  a  statute  is  called  in  question, 
it  s  the  duty  of  the  court  to  disregard  all  other  considerations  and 
decide  the  case  solely  upon  the  merits.  If  the  act  of  the  legislature 
violates  a  provision  of  the  constitution,  which  the  people  themselves 
in  their  sovereign  capacity  have  adopted,  then  the  legislature  trans- 
cends the  limit  of  its  power,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to  declare 
such  an  act  unconstitutional. 

This  is  exactly  what  the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals  did  in 
the  case  under  consideration.  The  Wainwright  Commission,  when 
this  bill  was  framed  and  submitted  to  the  legislature,  in  its  report 
called  attention  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  this  state  which 
prevent  the  enactment  of  legislation  such  as  had  been  enacted  along 
this  line  in  foreign  countries. 

The  leading  lawyers  of  the  legislature  had  doubt  about  the  con- 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    79 

stitutionality  of  the  act.  Governor  Hughes,  when  he  signed  the  bill, 
expressed  a  doubt  as  to  its  constitutionality.  He  said  it  was  a  close 
question  as  to  its  constitutionality  and  he  had  serious  doubts  about  its 
being  constitutional,  but  owing  to  the  transcendant  importance  of  the 
question,  he  would  sign  the  bill  and  let  the  matter  go  to  the  courts 
so  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  could  be  determined,  because 
he  said  it  was  a  question  upon  which  the  courts  should  pass  so  that  if  it 
was  necessary  in  order  to  accomplish  the  desired  result,  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  might  be  submitted  to  the  people. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  framers  of  the  law,  that  the  leading 
lawyers  in  the  legislature  and  Governor  Hughes,  all  had  doubt  about 
the  constitutionality  of  this  act  at  the  time  it  became  a  law.  The  de- 
cision of  the  Court  of  Appeals  simply  cleared  up  and  confirmed  that 
doubt. 

I  am  calling  attention  to  these  facts  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  character  of  the  unwarranted  attack  which  has  been  made  upon 
the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals  by  Col.  Roosevelt. 

I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  after  quoting  at  length 
from  the  report  of  the  Wainwright  Commission,  the  court  said: 

"This  quoted  summary  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mission to  the  legislature,  which  clearly  and  fairly 
epitomizes  what  is  more  fully  set  forth  in  the  body  of 
the  report,  is  based  upon  a  most  voluminous  array  of  sta- 
tistical tables,  extracts  from  the  works  of  philosophical 
writers  and  the  industrial  laws  of  many  countries,  all  of 
which  are  designed  to  show  that  our  own  system  of 
dealing  with  industrial  accidents  is  economically,  mor- 
ally and  legally  unsound.  Under  our  form  of  govern- 
ment, however,  the  courts  must  regard  all  economic, 
philosophical  and  moral  theories,  attractive  and  desir- 
able though  they  may  be,  as  subordinate  to  the  primary 
question  whether  they  can  be  moulded  into  statutes 
witho^it  injringing  upon  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  our  written 
constitutions.  In  that  respect  we  are  unlike  any  of  the 
countries  whose  industrial  laws  are  referred  to  as  models 
for  our  guidance.  In  our  country  the  federal  and  the 
state  constitutions  are  the  charts  which  demark  the 
extent  and  the  limitations  of  legislative  power;  and 
while  it  is  true  that  the  rigidity  of  a  written  constitution 
may  at  times  prove  to  be  a  hindrance  to  the  march  of 
progress,  yet  more  often  its  stability  protects  the  people 
against  the  frequent  and  violent  fluctuations  of  that 
which  for  want  of  a  better  name,  we  call  public  opinion. 
With  this  consideration  in  mind  we  turn  to  the  purely 
legal  phase  of  the  controversy." 


80    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

It  will  be  observed  here  that  the  learned  court  took  into  consider- 
ation all  the  facts  based  upon  sociology  and  philosophy  and  industrial 
development,  but  the  court  properly  held  that  its  sworn  duty  was  to 
consider  only  the  legal  phase  of  the  controversy  and  determine  whether 
or  not  the  act  was  in  violation  of  the  constitution  and  infringed  upon 
individual  rights  as  guaranteed  by  that  instrument.  This  position  of 
the  court  is  absolutely  correct,  political  agitators  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding.    Upon  this  point  the  court  further  says: 

"In  the  Labor  Law  and  the  Employer's  Liability 
Act,  which  define  the  risks  assumed  by  the  employe, 
there  are  many  provisions  which  cast  upon  the  employer 
a  great  variety  of  duties  and  burdens  unknown  to  the 
Common  Law.  These  can  doubtless  be  still  farther 
multiplied  and  extended  to  the  point  where  they  deprive 
the  employer  of  rights  guaranteed  to  him  by  our  consti- 
tutions, and  there,  of  course,  they  must  stop." 

And  then  we  come  to  the  crucial  point  in  this  case  and  I  quote 
the  opinion  of  the  court  as  follows: 

"This  legislation  is  challenged  as  void  under  the 
14th  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  and 
under  Section  6,  Art  I,  of  the  State  Constitution,  which 
guarantee  all  persons  against  deprivation  of  life,  liberty 
or  property  without  due  process  of  law.  We  shall  not 
stop  to  dwell  at  length  upon  the  definition  of  'life,' 
•liberty,'  'property'  and  'due  process  of  law.'  They 
are  simple  and  comprehensive  in  themselves  and 
have  been  so  often  judicially  defined  that  there  can  be  no 
misunderstanding  as  to  their  meaning.  Process  of  law  in 
its  broad  sense  means  law  in  its  regular  course  of  admin- 
istration through  courts  of  justice,  and  that  is  another 
way  of  saying  that  every  man's  right  to  life,  liberty  and 
property,  is  to  be  disposed  of  in  accordance  with  those 
ancient  and  fundamental  principles  which  were  in  exis- 
tence when  our  constitutions  were  adopted.  Due  pro- 
cess of  law  implies  the  right  of  the  person  affected  there- 
by to  be  present  before  the  tribunal  which  pronounces 
judgment  upon  the  question  of  life,  liberty  or  property 
in  its  most  comprehensive  sense;  to  be  heard  by  testi- 
mony or  otherwise,  and  to  have  the  right  of  contro- 
verting by  proof  every  material  fact  which  bears  upon 
the  question  of  right  in  the  matter  involved.  If  any 
question  of  fact  or  liability  be  conclusively  presumed 
against  him  this  is  not  due  process  of  law." 

Right  here  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  act  pro- 
vided for  making  a  certain  class  of  employers  responsible  for  injuries 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    81 

to  their  employes,  without  regard  to  the  negligence  of  the  employer. 
The  employer  was  made  liable  for  damages  if  he  was  himself  free  from 
fault  and  if  his  employe  was  not  free  from  negligence.  This  is  a  reversal 
of  all  former  rules  of  law  upon  this  question  in  this  state  and  it  applied 
only  to  employers  who  were  conducting  a  certain  kind  of  industries 
and  thereby  singled  them  out  as  a  distinct  class  upon  whom  this  new, 
extra  and  unusual  burden  was  to  be  imposed. 
Upon  this  question  the  court  says: 

"The  several  industries  and  occupations  enumer- 
ated in  the  statute  before  us  are  concededly  lawful  within 
any  of  the  numerous  definitions  which  might  be  referred 
to,  and  have  always  been  so.  They  are,  therefore,  under 
the  constitutional  protection.  One  of  the  inalienable 
rights  of  every  citizen  is  to  hold  and  enjoy  his  property 
until  it  is  taken  away  from  him  by  due  process  of  law. 
When  our  constitutions  were  adopted  it  was  the  law  of 
the  land  that  no  man  who  was  without  fault  or  negligence 
could  he  held  liable  in  damages  for  injuries  sustained  by 
another.  That  is  still  the  law,  except  as  to  the  employers 
enumerated  in  the  new  statute,  and  as  to  them  it  pro- 
vides that  they  shall  be  liable  to  their  employes  for  per- 
sonal injury  by  accident  to  any  workman  arising  out  of 
and  in  the  course  of  the  employment  which  is  caused  in 
whole  or  in  part,  or  is  contributed  to,  by  the  necessary 
risk  or  danger  of  the  employment  or  one  inherent  in  the 

nature  thereof. 

*         *         * 

It  is  conceded  that  this  is  a  Hability  unknown  to 
the  Common  Law,  and  w^e  think  it  plainly  constitutes 
a  deprivation  of  liberty  and  property  under  the  Federal 
and  State  Constitutions,  unless  its  imposition  can  be 
justified  under  the  police  power,  which  will  be  discussed 
under  a  separate  head." 

And  then  the  Court  adds: 

"We  have  already  admitted  the  strength  of  this  ap- 
peal to  the  recognized  and  widely  prevalent  sentiment, 
but  we  think  it  is  an  appeal  which  must  be  made  to  the 
people  and  not  to  the  courts.  The  right  of  property 
rests  not  upon  philosophical  or  scientific  speculations, 
nor  upon  the  commendable  impulses  of  benevolence  or 

charity." 

*         *         * 

The  right  has  its  foundation  in  the  fundamental  law. 
That  can  be  changed  by  the  people,  but  not  by  the  legisla- 
ture." 


82    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

In  a  government  like  ours  theories  of  public  good  or 
necessity  are  often  so  plausible  or  sound  as  to  command 
popular  approval,  but  the  courts  are  not  permitted  to 
forget  that  the  law  is  the  only  chart  by  which  the  Ship 
of  State  is  to  be  guided.  Law  as  used  in  this  sense  means 
the  basic  law  and  not  the  very  act  of  the  legislature 
which  deprives  the  citizen  of  his  rights,  privileges  or 
property.  Any  other  view  would  lead  to  the  absurdity 
that  the  constitutions  protect  only  those  rights  which  the 
legislatures  do  not  take  away.  If  such  economic  and  so- 
ciological arguments  as  are  advanced  in  support  of  this 
statute  can  be  allowed  to  subvert  the  fundamental  idea 
of  property,  then  there  is  no  property  right  entirely  safe, 
because  there  is  no  limitation  upon  the  absolute  dis- 
cretion of  legislatures  and  the  guarantees  of  the  con- 
stitution are  a  mere  waste  of  words." 

And  the  Court  adds : 

"  If  it  is  competent  to  impose  upon  an  employer  who 
has  omitted  no  legal  duty  and  has  committed  no  wrong, 
a  liability  based  solely  upon  a  legislative  fiat  that  his  bus- 
iness is  inherently  dangerous,  it  is  equally  competent  to 
visit  upon  him  a  special  tax  for  the  support  of  hospitals 
and  other  charitable  institutions,  upon  the  theory  that 
they  are  devoted  largely  to  the  alleviation  of  ills  primar- 
ily due  to  his  business.  In  its  final  and  simple  analysis, 
that  is  taking  the  property  of  "A"  and  giving  it  to  "B" 
and  that   can  not   be   done   under  our  constitution." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  legislature,  as  the  court  well  says,  by 
a  legislative  fiat  singled  out  a  certain  class  of  employers  and  attempted 
to  impose  a  burden  upon  them  which  it  imposed  upon  no  other  class 
of  citizens.  It  attempted  by  this  statute  to  impose  a  burden  upon 
them  and  take  their  property  for  a  purpose  for  which  no  other  man's 
property  is  taken.  This  is  clearly  a  violation  of  the  constitutional 
guarantee  of  liberty,  equality  and  property  rights. 

The  court  has  rightly  and  justly  held  that  this  is  taking  property 
without  "due  process  of  law"  and  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  the  court  points  the  way  out  of  this  difficulty  by  saying 
that  if  the  people  want  such  a  law,  and  if  such  a  law  is  desirable,  and 
if  our  industries  have  developed  to  that  point  where  such  a  law  is 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  laboring  man,  then  the  appeal 
should  be  made  to  the  people  to  change  their  constitution  and  not  to 
the  courts  to  change  it,  because  the  courts  have  no  right  or  authority 
to  change  the  constitution. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSIOX    83 

POLICE   POWER   OF  THE   STATE 

It  is  contended  by  the  defenders  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
act  in  question,  that  it  falls  within  the  police  power  of  the  state. 
They  cite  in  confirmation  of  this  theory  the  court  decisions  under 
the  "Civil  Damage  Act,"  where  hquor  dealers  and  their  landlords 
are  held  liable  for  damages  resulting  from  injuries  or  crimes. 

The  contention  is  that  the  landlord  is  an  innocent  party,  whose 
property  is  taken  the  same  as  it  was  proposed  to  take  the  employer's 
property  under  this  act,  who  is  innocent  of  any  fault.  The  merest 
novice  can  see  that  these  are  not  parallel  cases  and  that  they  are 
clearly  distinguishable. 

In  the  case  of  the  landlord  who  rents  his  place  to  a  liquor  dealer, 
he  rents  it  to  carry  on  a  business  that  has  no  inherent  rights, — it  has 
only  such  rights  as  are  given  to  it  by  the  legislature, — it  has  no  natural 
or  inherent  rights  because  it  must  first  of  all  get  permission  from  the 
state  in  the  form  of  a  license  before  it  can  be  permitted  to  exist  as  a 
business. 

Therefore,  the  landlord  who  rents  his  place  to  a  liquor  dealer  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  on  such  a  traffic,  knowing  that  the  law  imposes 
certain  liabilities  upon  the  business,  has  knowledge  of  the  facts  and 
becomes  an  accomplice  in  whatever  injury  results  from  the  traffic 
and  is  equally  liable  with  the  liquor  dealer  himself. 

The  employer  upon  whom  this  statute  sought  to  place  a  new 
liability  when  the  employer  was  himself  free  from  fault,  is  quite  a 
different  question  than  imposing  a  liability  upon  the  owner  of  a  place 
where  liquor  is  sold  with  his  knowledge  and  consent  under  the  re- 
strictions of  the  statute  and  who  thereby  becomes  a  party  to  the 
fault. 

Not  only  this,  but  the  employer  affected  by  this  statute,  is 
engaged  in  a  business  that  does  not  depend  upon  the  legislature  for 
its  existence;  and  it  is  a  business  which  the  legislature  can  not  take 
away  from  him,  it  does  not  have  to  obtain  a  license  from  the  state, 
because  it  is  protected  by  the  Constitution  as  one  of  the  inalienable 
rights  of  individual  citizens  to  engage  in  such  business. 

IMPORTANT  AND   GROWING   QUESTION 

Attention  should  be  directed  to  the  fact  that  this  is  a  subject 
which  is  being  considered  in  nearly  every  state  in  the  Union  and  it 
has  been  the  subject  of  agitation  and  legislation  in  nearly  every  Euro- 


84    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

pean  country.  In  England  there  are  no  constitutional  limitations 
because  the  acts  of  ParUament  are  the  "supreme  law  of  the  land," 
and  the  courts  are  not  obliged  to  render  decisions  in  accordance  with  a 
written  constitution  adopted  by  the  people  themselves,  as  are  the 
courts  in  this  country. 

This  is  an  important  and  growing  question  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  something  should  be  done  to  afford  better  protection  to  the  work- 
ing man,  who  is  employed  in  these  hazardous  industries,  but  the  ques- 
tion is  how  to  properly  adjust  the  matter  fairly  and  equitably  between 
the  employer  and  the  employe. 

If  you  make  one  hable  for  the  faults  of  another,  how  can  you 
reconcile  that  with  justice?  If  you  make  an  employer,  who  is  free 
from  fault,  liable  for  the  negligence  of  his  employe,  and  for  the  fault 
of  his  employe,  how  can  that  be  reconciled  with  justice?  That  is 
exactly  what  this  statute  did.  There  must  be  some  other  way  to 
adjust  this  matter  between  the  employer  and  the  employe. 

In  Germany  where  they  have  made  an  intelligent  and  serious 
effort  to  solve  this  problem,  they  have  established  a  compulsory 
insurance  system,  and  the  employer  contributes  a  certain  amount  and 
the  employe  contributes  a  certain  amount  to  create  a  fund  to  be 
available  to  relieve  those  who  are  injured  by  accident.  This  has  been 
carried  to  the  extent  that  both  the  ill  and  the  injured  are  provided  for. 
Upon  this  subject  the  Wainwright  report  says: 

"The  German  system  is  dependent  upon  the  work- 
ings of  a  highly  organized  bureaucratic  government  of 
vigorous  central  powers  foreign  to  American  ideas. 
The  elements  of  error  and  the  difference  of  the  condi- 
tions do  not  admit  of  a  didatic  conclusion  as  to  its  merits 
when  applied  to  another  country." 

In  England  for  a  long  time  there  were  a  certain  number  of  indus- 
tries, fifteen  or  twenty,  which  were  put  in  the  class  of  "hazardous" 
industries  and  the  employer  was  made  liable  for  injuries  to  the  em- 
ploye, but  in  that  country  all  restrictions  have  now  been  removed  and 
the  law  applies  not  only  to  industries,  but  to  individuals. 

If  a  laboring  man's  wife  becomes  ill  and  he  hires  a  woman  to  come 
in  and  do  the  house  work  :or  a  day  and  in  sweeping  or  dusting  she 
happens  to  run  a  needle  under  her  finger  nail,  and  by  carelessness, 
negligence  or  ignorance  does  not  attend  to  it  and  blood  poisoning  sets 
in,  the  employer  is  liable  and  must  pay  the  damage.     This  system 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    85 

comes  home  to  the  laboring  man  as  well  as  to  the  manufacturer,  the 
employer  and  every  other  citizen. 

So  you  see  that  this  is  a  difficult  problem.  It  is  one  that  requires 
much  study,  investigation  and  experiment  to  ascertain  what  an  equit- 
able arrangement  would  be  between  the  employer  and  the  employe  to 
insure  the  employe  against  inevitable  accidents.  Nearly  every  state 
in  the  Union  is  experimenting  along  this  line  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
some  fair  and  equitable  basis  will  finally  be  ascertained  upon  which 
legislation  can  be  enacted  which  will  be  reasonably  satisfactory  to 
both  the  employer  and  the  employe. 

The  fair,  equitable  and  friendly  adjustment  of  the  relations  be- 
tween capital  and  labor  is  the  paramount  problem  of  our  age  and  the 
one  which  is  knocking  hardest  at  the  door  of  our  twentieth  century 
civilization  and  demanding  a  solution. 

LIABILITY    OF   EMPLOYER   IN    NEWSPAPER    PLANTS 

The  Employer's  Liability  Law,  passed  in  this  state  in  1910,  being 
Chapter  352  of  the  laws  of  that  year,  made  many  changes  in  the  rela- 
tions between  employer  and  employe,  which  affect  newspaper  plants 
as  follows: 

First, — An  employer  is  liable  for  injury  to  an  employe  by  reason 
of  any  defect  in  the  ways,  works,  machinery  or  plant,  which  directly 
or  indirectly  causes  an  injury. 

Second, — An  employer  is  liable  for  an  injury  to  his  employe  by 
reason  of  the  negligence  of  a  fellow  servant,  such  as  a  foreman  or  any 
other  person  with  authority  to  direct,  control  or  command  any  em- 
ploye in  the  performance  of  his  duties. 

Third, — The  employe  now  assumes  onlj'  the  risk  inherent  in  the 
business  and  no  other.  The  assumption  of  risk  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ploye is  so  changed  that  the  employe  can  recover  damages  from  the 
employer  even  if  the  employe  continues  to  work  on  a  defective  machine 
or  appliance  after  he  knows  that  it  is  defective.  This  is  on  the  theory 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  employer  to  repair  or  see  to  it  that  the  de- 
fective machinery  is  repaired,  and  therefore,  he  must  himself  assume 
the  risk. 

But  if  such  employe  knows  of  such  defect  or  negligence,  and  the 
employer  did  not  know  of  such  defect  which  caused  the  injury,  and 
the  employe  failed  within  a  reasonable  time  to  give  or  cause  to  be 
given  information  thereof  to  the  employer,  or  to  some  person  superior 


86    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

to  himself  in  the  service  of  the  employer,  the  employe  in  such  case  can 
not  recover  damages  from  his  employer. 

Fourth, — In  case  of  an  injury  to  the  employe  if  the  employer  sets 
up  the  defense  that  the  employe's  negligence  contributed  to  the 
accident,  the  burden  of  proof  is  now  shifted  from  the  employe  to  the 
employer.  Under  the  Common  Law  the  employe  had  to  prove  him- 
self free  from  negligence  in  order  to  recover  damages.  The  statute  of 
1910,  chapter  352,  reverses  this  rule  of  the  Common  Law. 

Fifth, — An  agreement  made  between  the  employer  and  employe 
relieving  the  employer  of  liability  under  the  Common  Law  has  been 
held  by  the  courts  to  be  void  in  the  case  of  Johnson  v.  Fargo. 

Sixth, — If  an  employer  sets  an  employe  at  work  or  causes  him  to 
be  set  at  work  on  a  machine  or  a  press  without  giving  or  causing  him 
to  be  given  sufficient  instructions  to  operate  the  machine  or  press 
properly,  the  employer  is  guilty  of  negligence  and  liable  for  damages. 

There  is  another  thing  in  connection  with  the  decision  in  the  Ives 
case  to  which  I  desire  to  call  attention.  That  is  the  fact  that  since  the 
Court  of  Appeals  handed  it  down,  nearly  every  state  which  has  enacted 
workmen's  compensation  laws,  has  moulded  its  statutes  in  har- 
mony with  it,  thereby  recognizing  the  fact  that  it  is  a  sound  decision. 

The  states  of  New  Jersey,  Massachusetts,  Wisconsin,  Illinois, 
Ohio,  Michigan,  Kansas  and  California  have  all  passed  workmen's 
compensation  acts  since  the  Court  of  Appeals  handed  down  this 
decision  and  not  one  of  these  states  has  passed  a  compulsory  act 
like  the  New  York  State  act  which  the  Court  of  Appeals  declared  un- 
constitutional. 

Every  one  of  these  states  has  passed  an  optional  or  elective 
compensation  act  which  requires  the  consent  of  both  the  employer  and 
the  employe.  It  is  significant  that  these  so-called  progressive  states 
have  moulded  their  workmen's  compensation  acts  in  harmony  with 
the  New  York  State  Court  of  Appeals'  decision.  No  higher  tribute 
could  be  paid  to  that  decision  than  to  have  these  states  recognize  its 
legality  and  mould  their  statutes  in  harmony  with  it.  This  fact 
alone  should  forever  silence  any  further  criticism  of  this  decision. 

CONCLUSION 

In  conclusion  I  wish  to  say,  that  in  accordance  with  the  decision 
of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  the  New  York  State  legislature,  at  the  last 
session,  passed  a  constitutional  amendment,  introduced  by  Assembly- 
man Cyrus  W.  Phillips,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Wainwright  Com- 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    87 

mission,  which  is  designed  to  meet  this  new  industrial  situation,  and 
when  it  passes  the  next  legislature  it  will  then  be  submitted  to  the 
people  and  the  people  themselves  will  have  a  chance  to  rule  upon  this 
question  in  the  regular,  orderly  and  legal  manner  prescribed  by  law. 
The  people  have  some  rights  which  even  political  agitators  are 
bound  to  respect.  The  people  have  a  right  to  amend  their  own  con- 
stitution and  this  right  should  never  be  taken  from  them  by  the  courts, 
even  to  gratify  the  conceit  of  demagogues,  who  vainly  imagine  that 
they  alone  represent  the  "whole  people." 

I  heartily  endorse  the  position  of  Col.  Roosevelt  when  he  says: 

"I  suppose  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  reiterate  what 
I  have  so  often  said;  that  I  hold  the  judiciary  of  the 
Nation  in  very  high  regard;  that  I  think  the  average 
judge  is  a  better  public  servant  than  the  average  execu- 
tive or  legislative  officer." 

(Outlook,  p.  52,  May  13,  1911) 

I  am  glad  to  state  that  Col.  Roosevelt  has  said  the  right  thing  on 
the  right  side  of  this  subject  and  on  nearly  every  other  subject,  but  I 
regret  to  say  that  with  equal  versatility  he  has  said  the  wrong  thing 
on  the  wrong  side  of  nearly  every  conceivable  subject.  It  is  his 
boundless  versatility  in  advocating  all  sides  of  every  question  that  has 
resulted  in  his  unprecedented  popularity,  which  has  given  him  such 
a  mighty  influence  for  good  and  evil.  When  he  exerts  his  influence  to 
undermine  public  confidence  in  our  courts  of  justice  he  becomes  an 
evil  genius  who  with  ruthless  hands,  is  trying  to  pull  down  the  pillars 
of  the  Republic. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  we  have  in  this  country  ambitious  political 
agitators  and  office  seekers  who  pose  as  the  only  friends  of  the  people 
and  who  are  in  such  a  hurry  to  change  and  amend  our  constitution 
that  they  can  not  wait  for  it  to  be  done  by  the  people  in  the  regular  and 
legal  way. 

When  the  political  exigencies  of  the  hour  require  the  putting 
through  some  scheme  "to  catch  votes"  and  when  they  are  confronted 
with  such  a  situation  they  are  willing  to  "throw  constitutions  out  of 
the  window." 

When  some  court  stands  between  the  people  and  the  legislature 
and  declares  that  the  legislature  can  not  usurp  and  exercise  the  power 
and  authority  reserved  exclusively  to  the  people  themselves  in  their 
written  constitution,  these  impatient  political  agitators  at  once  begin 


88    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

to  attack  and  condemn  the  courts  for  not  being  guided  by  personal 
whims  instead  of  the  constitution. 

Some  of  these  political  agitators,  who  call  themselves  reformers, 
have  such  supreme  confidence  in  their  own  virtue  and  wisdom,  that 
they  have  come  to  regard  their  own  personal  whims  as  permanent  and 
eternal  truths,  and  they  expect  judges  to  acknowledge  such  whims 
as  the  "supreme  law  of  the  land."  When  the  courts  refuse  to  accept 
them  as  such  they  swear  at  and  abuse  the  courts  and  declare  that  the 
judges  have  become  "fossilized"  and  are  no  longer  "fit  to  sit  upon  the 
bench,"  and  then  demand  the  recall  of  judges  and  court  decisions  by  a 
majority  vote. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  recall  of  judges  and  court  decisions  by  a 
majority  vote.  I  am  opposed  to  any  system  that  would  tend  to 
threaten  or  destroy  the  independence  of  the  judge  upon  the  bench. 
I  am  in  favor  of  an  independent  and  fearless  judiciary  because  it  is  the 
citadel  of  liberty  and  justice.  Therefore,  I  am  emphatically  opposed 
to  any  doctrine  which  proposes  to  make  the  confusion  of  the  multitude 
the  final  interpreter  of  the  law,  and  the  passion  of  the  populace  the 
final  arbiter  of  justice. 


COL.    ROOSEVELT   AND    COURT   DECISIONS* 
By  p.  Tecumseh  Sherman 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  recent  criticisms  of  decisions  by  our  New 
York  Court  of  Appeals  Mr.  Roosevelt  has  indulged  in  statements 
which,  if  he  has  been  correctly  reported,  are  inexcusably  inaccurate. 

1.  Referring  to  the  Matter  of  Jacobs  (98  N.  Y.,  98),  wherein  the 
Court  of  Appeals  held  unconstitutional  Chapter  272  of  the  Laws  of 
1884,  which  forbade  the  manufacture  of  tobacco  on  any  part  of  a  floor 
used  for  living  purposes  in  any  tenement  house  in  a  city  having  over 
500,000  inhabitants,  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  reported  to  have  said: 

The  decision  of  the  court  in  this  case  retarded  by  at 
least  twenty  years  the  work  of  tenement  reform  and  was 
directly  responsible  for  causing  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  American  citizens  now  alive  to  be  brought  up  under 
conditions  of  reeking  filth  and  squalor,  which  immeasur- 
ably decreased  their  chance  of  turning  out  to  be  good 
citizens. 

That  that  decision  was  responsible  for  any  such  consequences  as 
Mr.  Roosevelt  asserts  is  absurd.  What  it  held  was,  in  brief,  that 
people  have  a  right  to  work  in  their  homes  and  that  the  Legislature 
may  not  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  that  right  except  so  far  as  may 
be  reasonably  necessary  for  the  public  health,  safety,  &c.,  and  that 
the  act  in  question,  purporting  to  be  for  the  public  health,  was  not  a 
reasonable  regulation  for  that  purpose,  because  it  arbitrarily  selected 
one  article  and  forbade  its  manufacture  under  certain  conditions,  not 
generally  unsanitary,  whether  unsanitary  or  not.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
the  act  was  not  designed  to  protect  health  but  to  put  out  of  business 
one  set  of  competitors  in  a  trade  war;  but  of  that  fact  the  court  neither 
had  nor  took  notice. 

That  this  decision  did  not  retard  the  work  of  tenement  reform 
"by  at  least  twenty  years"  and  that  it  did  not  prevent  the  Legislature 
from  forbidding  the  manufacture  of  tobacco  or  anything  else  in  tene- 
ment homes  "under  conditions  of  reeking  filth  and  squalor,"  is  mani- 


"Printed  by  permission. 


90    BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

fest  from  the  fact  that  seven  years  later  the  Legislature,  by  Chapter 
673  of  the  Laws  of  1892,  empowered  the  Factory  Inspector  to  regulate 
the  manufacture  of  many  things,  tobacco  included,  in  tenement  houses 
throughout  the  State  and  to  prevent  such  manufacture  wherever  un- 
sanitary. And  this  later  act,  strengthened  and  enlarged  by  subsequent 
amendments,  is  still  the  law  (Labor  Law,  Section  100),  and  is  of  un- 
questioned constitutionality. 

So  far,  then,  from  having  done  harm  in  the  way  of  sanitary  reform 
the  decision  in  the  Jacobs  case  has  done  good  by  giving  the  reform  a 
proper  direction  and  object.  Mr.  Roosevelt's  criticism  receives  a 
ready  chorus  of  approval  from  a  large  body  of  ill  informed  reformers 
who  seek  to  prevent  some  of  the  evils  of  "sweating"  by  arbitrarily 
forbidding  all  home  manufacture  in  tenements.  But  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  tenement  houses  in  New  York  are  of  the  class  better  described 
as  apartment  houses,  which  are  perfectly  sanitary,  and  in  such  houses 
there  is  much  home  work  of  a  good  kind,  such  as  fine  sewing,  art  work, 
&c.,  and  under  good  conditions;  and  it  would  be  a  deplorable  and  un- 
necessary interference  with  liberty  to  forbid  such  work  as  an  incident 
to  the  prevention  of  home  work  in  unsanitary  slums. 

2.    Mr.  Roosevelt  is  reported  as  saying  also: 

When  the  Legislature  of  New  York  passed  a  law 
limiting  the  hours  of  labor  of  women  in  factories  to  ten 
hours  a  day  for  six  days  a  week  and  forbade  their  being 
employed  after  9  in  the  evening  and  before  6  in  the 
morning  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  declared 
it  unconstitutional. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  did  not  do  that.  It  did  not  hold  the  pro- 
vision forbidding  the  employment  of  women  more  than  ten  hours  a 
day  or  six  days  a  week  to  be  unconstitutional.  On  the  contrary  that 
provision  has  been  uniformly  sustained  and  enforced  by  the  courts. 
And  it  is  also  the  law  of  New  York  to-day,  and  of  unquestioned  consti- 
tutionality, that  female  minors  under  twenty-one  years  of  age  may 
not  be  employed  in  a  factory  before  6  A.  M.  nor  after  9  P.  M.  (Labor 
Law,  Section  77). 

What  the  court  did  hold  to  be  unconstitutional  was  so  much  of 
the  statute  as  forbids  the  employment  of  adult  women  in  factories 
after  9  P.  M.  or  before  6  A.  M.  (People  vs.  Williams,  189  N.  Y.  131). 
The  effect  of  a  contrary  decision  would  have  been  to  deprive  adult 
women  of  the  right  to  employment  in  many  well  paid  occupations, 
with  short  hours  of  labor,  but  wherein  it  is  occasionally  necessary  to 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    91 

work  until  10,  11  or  12  o'clock  in  the  night.  And  the  arbitrariness  of 
such  a  prohibition  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  such  women  are  allowed 
by  law  to  work  at  all  hours  of  the  night  in  other  occupations  and  under 
worse  conditions,  provided  that  the  work  is  not  in  a  factory.  This 
particular  form  of  prohibition  of  night  work  was  copied  from  foreign 
laws,  wherein  it  was  designed  to  stop  the  employment  of  night  shifts 
of  women  in  mills,  &c.  No  such  condition  existed  or  exists  in  New 
York.  If  the  practice  of  employing  night  shifts  of  women  in  factories 
should  arise  in  New  York  the  decision  in  the  Williams  case  does  not 
stand  in  the  way  of  appropriate  legislation  to  prohibit  it. 

3.  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  reported  as  saying  also  that  the  New  York 
Legislature  passed  a  law  to  prevent  the  employment  of  men  in  filthy 
cellar  bakeries  for  longer  than  ten  hours  a  day,  but  that  the  courts 
have  held  it  unconstitutional.  In  this  instance  it  is  really  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  that  is  in  contempt  of  the  Colonel.  The  facts 
are  that  the  Legislature  passed  an  act  (Labor  Law,  Section  110;  Laws 
1897,  Chapter  415),  forbidding  employment  in  any  bakery  or  confec- 
tionery— whether  filthy  or  the  contrary — for  more  than  ten  hours  a 
day;  that  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  (People  vs.  Lochner,  177 
N.  Y.  145)  sustained  its  constitutionality,  but  that  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  (Lochner  vs.  New  York,  198  U.  S.  45)  held  that  in 
the  absence  of  any  evidence  that  baking  per  se  is  a  particularly  un- 
healthy occupation  the  imposition  of  a  special  restriction  upon  the 
hours  of  work  in  that  occupation  constituted  an  unnecessary,  arbi- 
trary and  unreasonable  interference  with  freedom  to  labor  or  to  con- 
tract for  services. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  has  scoffed  at  this  doctrine  on  the  ground  that  the 
freedom  to  labor  sought  to  be  protected  by  the  court  is  really  "freedom 
to  be  compelled  to  work  long,"  and  not  freedom  to  work  long  volun- 
tarily. But  in  fact  the  restriction  would  interfere  with  liberty  to 
work  no  matter  how  freely;  and  unless  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to 
interfere  with  such  hberty  is  restricted  to  the  enactment  of  regulations 
reasonably  necessary  for  the  public  health,  safety,  &c.,  there  is  no 
limit  on  its  power,  and  it  may  arbitrarily  or  in  the  interests  of  special 
classes  regulate  our  lives  and  conduct  in  any  respect.  That  is  exactly 
what  the  Bill  of  Rights  in  our  Constitution  was  meant  to  prevent. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  decision  to  prevent  the  Legislature  from  regu- 
lating or  prohibiting  labor  in  vile  cellar  or  other  unsanitary  bakeries. 
On  the  contrary,  there  has  long  been  in  force  a  statute  of  unquestioned 
constitutionality  (Labor  Law,  Section  114)  which  authorizes  the  Com- 


92    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

missioner  of  Labor  by  summary  process  to  close  up  any  bakery  that 
is  unsanitary. 

4.  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  reported  as  saying  also : 

The  courts  hold  unconstitutional  the  law  under 
which  a  girl  was  endeavoring  to  recover  damages  for  the 
loss  of  her  arm  because  dangerous  machinery  was  un- 
guarded. 

This  assertion  is  a  vague  appeal  to  prejudice,  and  its  particular 
reference  is  uncertain.  It  conveys  the  impression  that  some  courts, 
in  some  cases,  have  held  a  statute  to  be  unconstitutional  because  it 
made  an  employer  liable  for  damages  for  failure  to  guard  his  machinery. 
There  is  certainly  no  decision  of  the  kind  by  the  higher  courts  of 
New  York,  and  probably  none  by  any  American  court.  On  the  con- 
trary, our  courts  generally  have  interpreted  the  law  in  this  respect 
so  far  in  favor  of  injured  workmen  that  an  employer  who  has  done  his 
level  best  in  safeguarding  his  machinery  may  nevertheless  be  held 
Hable  in  punitive  damages  if  a  sympathetic  jury,  against  the  prepon- 
derance of  evidence  and  contrary  to  the  prevailing  opinion  of  experts 
decides  that  he  might  have  guarded  it  better. 

5.  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  reported  as  saying  also: 

The  workmen's  compensation  act  but  a  year  or  two 
ago  was  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  courts  of  New 
York,  though  a  directly  reverse  decision  in  precisely 
similar  language  has  been  rendered  not  only  by  the 
State  courts  of  Iowa  and  Washington  but  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  among  those  who  believe  that  the  decision,  and  more  par- 
ticularly the  opinions,  of  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  case 
referred  to  (Ives  vs.  South  Buffalo  Railway  Co.,  201  N.  Y.  271)  were 
wrong.  But  no  degree  of  dissatisfaction  with  that  decision  can  excuse 
such  glaring  misstatements  of  fact  as  are  contained  in  the  foregoing 
quotation.  There  are  some  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  opinions  in  the 
Ives  case  which  it  may  be  contended  are  directly  contrary  to  doctrines 
laid  down  in  opinions  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  and  of  other 
courts.  But  that  a  decision  directly  the  reverse  of  that  of  the  New 
York  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Ives  case  has  been  rendered  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  or  the  courts  of  Iowa  is  wholly  un- 
true, for  the  question  decided  in  the  Ives  case  has  not  yet  been  before 
those  courts  and  there  has  been  no  decision  by  them  on  it.  As  to  the 
merits  of  the  decision  there  is  a  good  deal  to  be  said  on  both  sides;  but 
whatever  is  said  should  be  confined  to  the  truth. 


BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    93 

All  the  statutes  held  unconstitutional  in  the  decisions  complained 
of  by  Mr.  Roosevelt  sought  to  make  sweeping  changes  in  our  laws  for 
the  real  or  alleged  purpose  of  remedying  certain  social  evils  which 
admittedly  demand  remedy.  But  those  statutes  were  all  more  or  less 
ill  designed  for  their  respective  purposes  and  so  framed  as  to  cause  in- 
cidentally a  disproportionate  amount  of  harm  and  injustice.  By  in- 
validating them  the  courts  may  have  delayed  partial  relief,  but  they 
certainly  have  not  prevented  the  adoption  of  true  remedies  for  the 
evils  aimed  at;  and  by  some  of  those  decisions  they  have  protected 
minorities  from  oppression  and  injustice  under  the  false  guise  of 
statutory  regulations  for  the  correction  of  social  evils. 

P.  TECUMSEH  SHERMAN, 

Former  New  York  Stcde 
New  York,  April  23,  1912.  Commissioner  of  Labor. 

WORDS  OF  COMMENDATION 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  Your  feelings  regarding  Mr.  Roosevelt,  as 
you  state  them,  seem  almost  identical  with  those  which  I  hold,  and 
your  reply  to  him  in  the  correspondence,  seems  to  me  admirable  both 
as  regards  matter  and  manner. 

Your  attitude  also,  throughout  the  various  questions  incidentally 
touched  upon,  commends  itself  as  thorough,  sane  and  sound,  and  I  am 
glad  to  see  opinions  which  I  hold  stated  with  such  clearness  and  co- 
gency. Indeed,  I  can  recall  no  general  treatment  of  political  questions 
in  recent  years  which  seems  to  me  more  likely  to  influence  public 
opinion  healthfully.  HON.  ANDREW  D.  WHITE, 

Former  Minister  to  Germany. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  The  Roosevelt-Betts  letters  on  the  New 
York  State  Court  of  Appeals  decision,  and  the  subject  of  Direct 
Nominations  are  particularly  interesting.     I  congratulate  you. 

ALBERT  SHAW, 

Editor  of  Review  of  Reviews. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  I  have  received  copy  of  your  debate  with 
Colonel  Roosevelt  and  have  read  every  w^ord  of  it.  You  tell  many 
truths  in  terse  and  vigorous  language,  which  the  people  of  the  present 
time  are  trying  to  forget  or  ignore.     I  earnestly  congratulate  you. 

MICHEAL  E.  DRISCOLL, 

Member  of  Congress. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  Your  letter  contains  a  brilliant  exposition 
of  the  fundamental  principles  which  are  at  stake  in  the  discussion. 


94     BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

I  congratulate  you  upon  your  statesman-like  grasp  of  a  great 
issue.  A  Justice  of  Court  of  Appeals. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  Your  own  letter  to  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  the 
choice  one  of  the  entire  collection.  I  have  read  it  now  twice  and 
congratulate  you  most  earnestly.  It  is  a  grand  piece  of  work,  states- 
man-like and  convincing.  HON.  HAL  BELL, 

Prominent  New  York  Attorney. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  Your  conclusions  are  supported  both  by 
history  and  experience,  and  they  are  forcibly  presented.  And  you 
do  well  to  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that  in  the  last  analysis  this  matter  of 
direct  primary  nominations  does  involve  the  question  whether  we 
shall  have  a  representative  government  or  a  government  by  the  people 
en  masse — a  system  which  destroyed  all  the  ancient  republics. 

JACOB  GOULD  SCHURMAN, 
President  of  Cornell  University. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  You  are  entirely  right  in  holding  that 
direct  popular  government  is  incompatible  with  representative  govern- 
ment. PROF.  HENRY  JONES  FORD, 

Princton   University. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  Thank  you  for  the  copy  of  the  "BETTS- 
ROOSEVELT"  letters.  It  is  certainly  fine.  I  have  read  it  from  the 
first  to  the  last  page.  It  is  one  of  the  best,  most  comprehensive  and 
solidified  expositions  of  the  dangers  and  political  hallucinations  of  the 
day  that  I  have  seen.  I  wish  you  could  put  it  into  the  hands  of  every 
intelhgent  man,  not  only  in  the  State  of  New  York  but  of  the  U.  S. 
With  best  wishes  always.     Faithfully  yours, 

HUGH  HASTINGS, 

Former  New  York  State  Historian. 

Hon.  Charles  E.  Fitch,  L.  H.  D.,  for  many  years  editor  of  the 
Rochester  Democrat  and  Chronicle,  a  speaker  and  writer  of  high 
standing,  wide  influence  and  acknowledged  literary  talents,  writes 
Editor  Charles  H.  Betts  as  follows: 

July  3,  1912. 

My  dear  Mr.  Betts:  I  find  it  difficult  to  sufficiently  express  my 
appreciation  of  your  masterly  treatment  of  the  issue  which  a  former 
president  of  the  United  States  has  precipitated  upon  the  country. 
Your  side  of  the  debate  is  presented  in  the  clearest  and  most  cogent 
manner,  amply  fortified  with  historical  data  and  the  sanction  of  the 
greatest  philosophers  and  statesmen  of  all  ages.  Your  admirable 
volume  deserves,  as  it  will  receive,  wide  circulation  and,  I  am  sure,  will 
be  productive  of  great  influence  in  correcting  erroneous  impressions 
as  to  the  legitimate  functions  of  representative  government. 

Yours  sincerely, 

CHARLES  E.  FITCH. 


BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION    95 
PRESS  COMMENTS 

DEMONSTRATES  ROOSEVELT'S  FOLLY 

Charles  H.  Betts,  editor  of  The  Lyons  Republican  has  pubhshed  in 
a  volume  entitled,  "BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS,"  some  cor- 
respondence between  himself  and  Mr.  Roosevelt. 

The  most  important  item  in  the  volume  is  a  long  dessertation  by 
Mr.  Betts  in  which,  with  marked  cleverness  and  with  a  thorough  under- 
standing of  his  subject,  he  discusses  Mr.  Roosevelt's  so-called  pro- 
gressiveness  and  demonstrates  its  folly  and  harmfulness.  Mr.  Betts 
suppliments  his  declarations  and  arguments  with  quotations  from 
distinguished  men  of  our  own  and  other  times. — Book  Review  New  York 
Times,  July  U,  1912. 

A   CONTRIBUTION  TO  STATESMANSHIP 

Charles  H.  Betts,  editor  of  the  Lyons  Republican,  has  published 
the  "BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS,"  which  contains  his  dis- 
cussion with  Roosevelt  on  a  pure  democracy,  direct  nominations,  the 
initiative  and  referendum,  the  recall  and  the  decision  of  the  New  York 
Court  of  Appeals  in  the  workmen's  compensation  case.  The  discussion 
is  illuminating  from  Mr.  Betts'  handling  of  the  subjects  embraced. 
He  gives  us  the  clear,  sane  reasoning  of  a  man  who  has  studied  his 
subjects  and  who  knows  whereof  he  speaks.  Even  in  the  matter  of 
direct  primaries,  wherein  we  do  not  agree  with  him,  this  is  apparent. 
Roosevelt's  presentation  of  his  side  of  the  case  is  generally  an  appeal 
to  passion  or  prejudice.  Nowhere  is  the  contrast  between  the  two 
men  shown  better  than  in  the  language  employed  by  each.  Mr.  Betts 
is  refined  and  scholarly;  the  language  of  Roosevelt  bristles  with  super- 
latives, with  disputed  points  stated  as  though  they  were  the  eternal 
verities.  Mr.  Betts'  book  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  literature,  for 
it  is  really  literature,  and  to  statesmanship,  for  it  disposes  effectively 
of  some  of  the  claims  made  for  the  doctrines  favored  most  by  Roose- 
velt.— Rochester  Union  and  Advertiser,  June  15,  1912. 

A  CONTRIBUTION  TO  LITERATURE 

Political  controversy  does  not  usually  produce  anything  with 
claim  to  literary  quality,  but  the  little  volume  just  issued  by  the 
Lyons  (N.  Y.)  Republican  containing  letters  passed  between  its  editor, 
Charles  H.  Betts,  and  Theodore  Roosevelt  is  an  exception.  The  editor 
of  The  Republican  has  been  a  warm  friend  and  admirer  of  the  contribut- 
ing editor  of  The  Outlook  and  has  approved  in  his  career  some  things 
that  we  do  not  pretend  to  like.  But  when  it  came  to  the  reversal  at  pop- 
ular elections  of  the  constitutional  decisions  of  the  courts,  and,  partic- 
ularly, of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  Mr.  Betts  felt  the  need  of  discussing  the 
matter  directly  and  destructively  with  his  friend.  He  embraced  in 
the  discussion  a  number  of  other  questions  allied  to  the  main  one,  and 
he  brought  to  their  elucidation  a  wealth  of  information,  a  keenness 
and  clarity  of  analysis,  and  a  homely  strength  of  judgment  that  make 
the  correspondence  what  Mr.  Greeley  used  to  call  "mighty  interesting 


96    BETTS-EOOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DISCUSSION 

reading."  We  commend  it  to  the  thoughtful  attention  of  all  who  have 
been  tempted  to  think  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  really  has  at  heart  the 
improvement  of  popular  government. — New  York  Times,  June  15, 
1912. 

SANE  POLITICAL  PHILOSOPHY 

Many  of  our  readers  will  remember  the  short  but  spirited  dis- 
cussion, about  a  year  ago,  between  Colonel  Roosevelt  and  his  old 
friend  and  admirer,  Mr.  Charles  H.  Betts,  the  editor  of  The  Lyons 
Republican.  This  controversy  over  some  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  representative  democracy,  constitutional  limitations  and 
judicial  powers  was  spirited,  because  Colonel  Roosevelt  entered  into  it 
with  his  accustomed  vivacity  and  aggressiveness.  It  was  brief  because 
Mr.  Betts'  very  adequate  treatment  of  pernicious  and  destructive 
doctrines  from  Oyster  Bay  and  The  Outlook  office  soon  left  his  adver- 
sary without  a  leg  to  stand  upon.  This  incident  is  yet  a  source  of 
amusement  to  most  citizens,  excepting  Colonel  Roosevelt  himself  and 
his  immediate  disciples;  the  letters  themselves  and  the  accompanying 
documents  make  a  very  instructive  and  useful  compilation  in  the  per- 
manent form  in  which  they  have  been  issued  from  the  press  of  The 
Republican,  at  Lyons,  N.  Y.  We  commend  the  BETTS-ROOSE- 
VELT  book  to  the  attention  of  all  sane  students  of  political  phil- 
osophy.— New  York  Sun,  June  13,  1912. 

HOW  BETTS  FLOORED  ROOSEVELT 

How  Theodore  Roosevelt  was  worsted,  just  a  little  over  a  year 
ago,  in  a  controversy  over  a  magazine  article  in  which  he  had  made 
his  first  conspicuous  attack  upon  the  courts,  is  told  in  a  little  book 
entitled  "BETTS-ROOSEVELT  LETTERS— A  SPIRITED  DIS- 
CUSSION." 

It  was  Charles  H.  Betts  of  Lyons,  this  state,  who  took  issue  with 
Mr.  Roosevelt.  Mr.  Betts  is  owner  and  editor  of  The  Lyons  Republican 
and  a  member  of  the  Republican  state  committee.  He  was  formerly 
a  warm  supporter  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  *  *  *  ^^^  when  Mr. 
Roosevelt  turned  "the  spear  that  knows  no  brother"  against  the 
judiciary,  Mr.  Betts  could  not  follow  him. 

Going  at  length  into  the  merits  of  the  Rooseveltian  doctrine,  Mr. 
Betts  proved  that  it  was  based  on  error  and  fallacy. 

This  letter  was  a  knockout.  Mr.  Roosevelt's  reply  to  it  was 
evidence  that  it  was. 

*  *  *  No  attempt  was  made  to  reply  to  Mr.  Betts'  powerful 
arguments,  to  the  lucid  presentation  of  his  contentions.  This  was 
only  the  stubborn  refusal  to  withdraw  opinions  which  had  been  shown 
to  be  altogether  wrong. 

When  Mr.  Roosevelt  refrains  from  arguing  back,  and  contents 
himself  with  feeble  reassertion,  that  is  equivalent  to  confession  that 
he  has  been  floored  in  the  argument.  All  who  have  observed  his  ways 
will  concede  this  is  true. — Albany  Evening  Journal,  June  18,  1912. 


AT 


3  1158  00863  4940 


['BR>)RY  FACILITY 


,,-™-....il| 

o 


